Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html
1,099 comments
As a roboticist at the beginning of my career working on drones, I decided then and there that I would never make "bombs", a metaphor I used to mean anything that could be weaponized. I realized a lot of the work I was doing was funded by DARPA, and I was very cognizant about my research being used in this way. And like Dr. Kearns suggests, it's not entirely black and white. Would my path planning algorithm be used to more efficiently deliver scientific payloads to the atmosphere, or would it be used to route missiles to maximize casualties? Hard to really say, but I've avoided overtly military applications (even things like BigDog, designed to carry equipment for troops).
Sometimes the distinction is even more insidious. I did work on perpetual flight for drones, and Facebook had a perpetual flight project that had the goal of bringing internet access to remote locations in Africa. Sounds humanitarian, but I also didn't want to be responsible for subjecting poor Africans to what I consider Facebook's panopticon. Or maybe it would have been a net boon for the region? It's really hard to tell a priori, so the best I have managed for myself is just to try and stay in theory, where developments are further removed from direct consequence.
Sometimes the distinction is even more insidious. I did work on perpetual flight for drones, and Facebook had a perpetual flight project that had the goal of bringing internet access to remote locations in Africa. Sounds humanitarian, but I also didn't want to be responsible for subjecting poor Africans to what I consider Facebook's panopticon. Or maybe it would have been a net boon for the region? It's really hard to tell a priori, so the best I have managed for myself is just to try and stay in theory, where developments are further removed from direct consequence.
As an engineer, founder, and investor I'll note that there's an ethical mandate for investors as well; when I started drone.vc I committed as a Quaker to not investing in "offensive" technologies.
Separately, RE: bringing internet to new places, there's reasonable evidence to show that introducing broadband lifts GDP[1], so whatever you may think of Facebook, giving people high-speed connectivity to the whole Internet is probably a net positive. Disclaimer: I helped start Facebook's Connectivity Lab but no longer work there.
[1] http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/391452529895999/WDR16-BP-Exp...
Separately, RE: bringing internet to new places, there's reasonable evidence to show that introducing broadband lifts GDP[1], so whatever you may think of Facebook, giving people high-speed connectivity to the whole Internet is probably a net positive. Disclaimer: I helped start Facebook's Connectivity Lab but no longer work there.
[1] http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/391452529895999/WDR16-BP-Exp...
Please note that there's a sharp distinction between bringing the Internet to new places and bringing "the Internet" aka Facebook's walled garden to new places.
From a wikipedia section on Free Basics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#User_experience_re...
> In 2015, researchers evaluating how Facebook Zero shapes information and communication technologies (ICT) usage in the developing world found that 11% of Indonesians who said they used Facebook also said they did not use the Internet. 65% of Nigerians, and 61% of Indonesians agree with the statement that "Facebook is the Internet" compared with only 5% in the US
From a wikipedia section on Free Basics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#User_experience_re...
> In 2015, researchers evaluating how Facebook Zero shapes information and communication technologies (ICT) usage in the developing world found that 11% of Indonesians who said they used Facebook also said they did not use the Internet. 65% of Nigerians, and 61% of Indonesians agree with the statement that "Facebook is the Internet" compared with only 5% in the US
Most people on this site have not trusted FB's intentions with the drone project for good reason. Ever since we collectively realized a three years ago that FB's internet.org was a wolf in sheep's clothing, most people on here have been distrusting of FB.
Had the exact same predicament. Struggled with it morally, until I was exclusively working on offensive technologies ("cleanly isolating and neutralizing targets via unmanned air vehicles, out of line of sight with no gps"). That's when I quit and got some of my morality back by joining a quant firm that makes money off of other people purely for the purpose of making money and nothing else.
No wonder I have such an alcohol problem...
No wonder I have such an alcohol problem...
Almost any technology can be weaponized. It's not about the particular technology you work on, but who it's being built for and the intended application.
please help me understand how a substance that turns sand into soil, developed to green the deserts, can be used as a weapon.
To me this argument that "anything can be used in evil ways" is a poor excuse used to distract from the issue.
To me this argument that "anything can be used in evil ways" is a poor excuse used to distract from the issue.
Just because you can't see the destructive nature of a technology does not mean it doesn't have one. Sometimes it's a matter of perspective and context.
When gunpowder was invented the purpose was medicinal, three centuries later we had cannons.
Many things in our world seem positive on the onset, but give it some time and start looking from different angles and you're bound to find some potentially detrimental use.
Granted some inventions like nuclear energy and nitroglycerin, both intended for constructive purposes, have a more obvious destructive potential. An example that better connects with your question is a company such as Monsanto.
When gunpowder was invented the purpose was medicinal, three centuries later we had cannons.
Many things in our world seem positive on the onset, but give it some time and start looking from different angles and you're bound to find some potentially detrimental use.
Granted some inventions like nuclear energy and nitroglycerin, both intended for constructive purposes, have a more obvious destructive potential. An example that better connects with your question is a company such as Monsanto.
You're asking how fertilizer can be weaponized?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
I don't think he is
Not OP, but a fertilizer is a reasonable embodiment of something that turns desert soil into something in which plants can grow
Turning sand in to grass - this sounds like a great thing doesn't it?
It's for golf courses - there are amazing golf courses in dubai that required genetically modified burmuda grass in a sandy synthetic fertilized substrate. They take huge leaf blowers and cover football fields worth of sand with it, water the HELL out of it, and pretty soon, beautiful grass in the desert.
Grass in the desert is great for everyone, that wants to golf or make money off golfers.
Getting grass where it isn't sustainable is not benevolent.
It's for golf courses - there are amazing golf courses in dubai that required genetically modified burmuda grass in a sandy synthetic fertilized substrate. They take huge leaf blowers and cover football fields worth of sand with it, water the HELL out of it, and pretty soon, beautiful grass in the desert.
Grass in the desert is great for everyone, that wants to golf or make money off golfers.
Getting grass where it isn't sustainable is not benevolent.
Not exactly what I was talking about. And yet I fail to see how a Golf Course is a weapon. Waste of resources, yes. Unsustainable, yes. But weapon?
Actually I was talking about this: http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/sand-soil-7-hrs-biggest-s...
Regarding the original statement I was criticizing: Of course one can construct an argument of technology itself not having an ethical bias and the notion that everything can be used as a weapon. Sure, beat someone to death with flowers, go on!
The point I'm trying to make is that I consider this tactic a distraction. Nothing more than look! a three headed monkey behind you!
Actually I was talking about this: http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/sand-soil-7-hrs-biggest-s...
Regarding the original statement I was criticizing: Of course one can construct an argument of technology itself not having an ethical bias and the notion that everything can be used as a weapon. Sure, beat someone to death with flowers, go on!
The point I'm trying to make is that I consider this tactic a distraction. Nothing more than look! a three headed monkey behind you!
Depends on whether you see this 'greening the desert' as destructive to the environment or not I suppose.
And then perhaps there's a question of who owns this now greened and more usable desert?...
And then perhaps there's a question of who owns this now greened and more usable desert?...
Reminds me of Frank Herbert's "Dune", where the greening of the desert was viewed as ecological destruction (and more), as it destroyed the habitat of the worms.
It somehow makes sand vulnerable to microorganisms? Great, but what would that do to cement bridges and dams?
I can't find a reference but there was a story about a drummer or bugler or something in an army, and when his side was defeated the opposing prince was about to kill him, and he said "No, I have done you no harm! I never bore weapons against you, I only played my instrument so my friends would be encouraged."
And the prince said "by aiding them you killed my men" and slew the man.
And the prince said "by aiding them you killed my men" and slew the man.
And then the prince also killed the blacksmiths, because they made swords, and the farmers because their crops had fed the army, and cobbler because they made boots that people in the army wore, and the lumberjacks because their trees were used to construct siege engine, and the cattle herders because their oxen had been used to pull the army supply wagons, and the printers because their printing presses had been used to encourage the army, and the weavers because their cloth and clothed the army, and the tailors, because they had sewed clothes for the army, and the dye makers because their dye had colored the flags and uniforms of the army, and the tanners because their leather had been used to make the saddles for the cavalry, and the merchants because their money and taxes and paid for the state to have the army.
And then the people in the next town all got together and said, "Let us all work together and see that this prince is never able to defeat our army."
And then the people in the next town all got together and said, "Let us all work together and see that this prince is never able to defeat our army."
Here's a thought, what if you can get the same substance to work on the sand part of concrete?? It assumes more research and work, but the argument has a kernel of truth.. I don't sure I agree with using that to not think about the ethics of what you do, but nevertheless.
To badly misquote Richlieu,
"Give me six ideas from the most ethical of engineers, and I'll find something in them to weaponize."
Any primary research can be used for any range of good or evil... the task is to curtail the creators of evil uses.
"Give me six ideas from the most ethical of engineers, and I'll find something in them to weaponize."
Any primary research can be used for any range of good or evil... the task is to curtail the creators of evil uses.
If that technology is controlled by a government, it could be denied to whomever they decide is "undesireable"...
You can't imagine any way terraforming sand dunes on mass scale might do damage to nearby countries? It would be akin to diverting a river upstream which was an act of war historically.
Ah man, as a former straight leg grunt (meaning no plane, usually no helo or even a truck, we walk _everywhere_) anything that can take weight off is an absolute God send. We aren't blood thirsty but you would be saving a ton of knees, backs, frustration, and pain all around.
Yeah, no doubt that tech will help you. But the line from a robot carrying your guns to a robot wielding your guns is a little too direct for me.to work on personally. It's not that I think you are bloodthirsty. I think the people you work for are.
If all the engineers who have a sense of ethic refuse to work for military projects, it implies that military projects will be performed by less ethical than average people. It is frightening. IMHO, avoiding military projects because of ethic is counterproductive.
Richard Gatling thought his most famous invention would cause wars to be shorter and less brutal. More deaths faster would mean faster surrenders, he thought. He is a weapons inventor who thought he was doing something ethical.
Instead, he made war and death cheaper. He made it more likely. In his lifetime, machine guns were deployed asymmetrically, making it cheaper for colonial empires to kill large numbers of the colonized.
Instead, he made war and death cheaper. He made it more likely. In his lifetime, machine guns were deployed asymmetrically, making it cheaper for colonial empires to kill large numbers of the colonized.
Alfred Nobel thought so too with dynamite.
"Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops."
"Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops."
Isn't that what is kinda happening with nuclear weapons though? I would argue we have less armed conflict nowadays exactly for the reasoning in that quote. Dynamite did not really allow for two army corps to mutually annihilate each other in a second, nuclear weapons actually do.
Nuclear weapons didn't stop wars, and they didn't stop major powers from fighting each other. It just moved to proxy wars. Proxy wars have been common for a long time. Maybe they've stopped world wars, but maybe the two World Wars were exceptions and not a guaranteed feature. I don't know how to quantify whether there are greater or fewer armed conflicts between states since the invention of nuclear weapons.
It appears this is repeating trope- these inventors of highly effective killing machines did not consider that the increased rate of killing would be matched by an increase in mobilizing cannon-fodder.
Some genius in the near-future will probably make the same inaccurate prediction about autonomous killerbots, or more likely realistically, cyber-warfare (I hate that term): "Shutting down hospitals, power plants and other critical infrastructure will make wars shorter"
Some genius in the near-future will probably make the same inaccurate prediction about autonomous killerbots, or more likely realistically, cyber-warfare (I hate that term): "Shutting down hospitals, power plants and other critical infrastructure will make wars shorter"
This is essentially the argument for targetting the Iranian nuclear program with stuxnet.
"Hey, somebody's gotta help kill all these people, might as well be me--wouldn't want it to be a bad guy!"
You can talk yourself into working on anything at all with this rationalization.
Yes, even if you are completely against something. For example, if you are against GMO and work on this subject, you may give valuable insights (outside of NDA) to other GMO opponents to help their fight to stop GMO. Of course, you risk your job.
You are not going to change the military from the inside anymore than Snowden could change the NSA from the inside.
Thinking you can is naive at best.
Thinking you can is naive at best.
Snowden was inside and his actions have an impact on NSA. I hope these kinds of organisations will understand that if they want to avoid similar whistleblowers, they need to have a better management that listen to their "halflings".
Snowden didn't change anything from the inside. He tried and failed before realising a public-interest leak was the only way.
Damned if we do and damned if we don't?
Perhaps we need a license that excludes use of a technology for certain purposes (?)
Like the patent licensing terms for using AES-OCB?
>"One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions."
In the case of Fritz Haber, it's the same man who saved billions from hunger and killed millions by prolonging World War-I. Excellent article on the same - https://medium.com/the-mission/the-tragedy-of-fritz-haber-th...
Sometimes, the decision isn't clear as black & white; especially when you mix nationalism & patriotism into it.
In the case of Fritz Haber, it's the same man who saved billions from hunger and killed millions by prolonging World War-I. Excellent article on the same - https://medium.com/the-mission/the-tragedy-of-fritz-haber-th...
Sometimes, the decision isn't clear as black & white; especially when you mix nationalism & patriotism into it.
That's totally different. He chose to kill the people and did it intentionally out of hate / pride for his country. This thread and the posted link are discussing whether something is immoral or not. He knew it would kill a ton of people and designed it to on purpose. That situation is totally black and white.
Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that.
Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that.
> Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that
Nope.
Bomber Command in WWII and the use of nuclear weapons in WWII are both examples where you will find nuanced, intelligent debate on both sides of the argument of whether "mass, intentional killing" being wrong or not. What you describe as "hate / pride for his country" ... but isn't that the reason most soldiers kill? That you even bother to call this out shows that you know the reasons for killing people need to be taken into account.
I'm not making a statement on whether or not mass killing is wrong here, simply pointing out what seems obvious: it's far from black and white.
Nope.
Bomber Command in WWII and the use of nuclear weapons in WWII are both examples where you will find nuanced, intelligent debate on both sides of the argument of whether "mass, intentional killing" being wrong or not. What you describe as "hate / pride for his country" ... but isn't that the reason most soldiers kill? That you even bother to call this out shows that you know the reasons for killing people need to be taken into account.
I'm not making a statement on whether or not mass killing is wrong here, simply pointing out what seems obvious: it's far from black and white.
"intelligent debate on both sides of the argument of whether "mass, intentional killing" being wrong or not"
I'm sorry, but this sentence contains already the problem.
I'm sorry, but this sentence contains already the problem.
> Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that.
In shooting war, both sides have already ceded that killing people is morally justified.
And now you're in the unenviable position arguing about how much death is too much, and what are the proper ways to kill people in a war setting.
And then you get asked moral dilemmas if killing 100,000 people is okay if it saves 1,000,000 people from dying further. This is the Hiroshima/Nagasaki question in a nutshell.
I don't know that answer, but then I didn't fight a brutal war for four years, watching my friends, family, and countrymen die at the hands of a brutal regime.
In shooting war, both sides have already ceded that killing people is morally justified.
And now you're in the unenviable position arguing about how much death is too much, and what are the proper ways to kill people in a war setting.
And then you get asked moral dilemmas if killing 100,000 people is okay if it saves 1,000,000 people from dying further. This is the Hiroshima/Nagasaki question in a nutshell.
I don't know that answer, but then I didn't fight a brutal war for four years, watching my friends, family, and countrymen die at the hands of a brutal regime.
That was a thoroughly depressing read, but a most excellent one as such. Thanks.
Why would the engineers be more burdened with the ethics of their creation over the investors, founders, managements, lawyers, execs, CEOs and government policy makers who all contributed to, promoted and made happen its fabrication by engineers?
For the scope of this audience, I don't think it's necessarily a question of who's more responsible than the other. You're right, all the parties you've mentioned are just as culpable for their role in wrong-doing, even if it's abstracted or removed from implementation. As engineers though, we're in the unique position of being the gate-keeper between ideas, "visions" if you will (in the parlance of our times), and fruition. We're a gatekeeper between reality and the delusional musings afforded to people who aren't the engineers. We can say, "Fuck no, that should literally not exist or be built in any way", and do it loudly to stop the other parties from realizing their abusive vision. Or under dire circumstances, we can sabotage systems that need to be broken if it's too late to stop them from being created.
> investors, founders, managements, lawyers, execs, CEOs and government policy makers
Power, corruption and lies.
Those people often stand to personally (financially) benefit from unethical business decisions. Engineers have to think through all the dirty consequences, and still draw pretty much the same salary.
Power, corruption and lies.
Those people often stand to personally (financially) benefit from unethical business decisions. Engineers have to think through all the dirty consequences, and still draw pretty much the same salary.
They aren't more burdened, but they are the last line of defence.
Ah.. the causality.. the argument can be made that without engineers the creation would never happen, (even if others are still trying to make money without ethics..).
To me, the salient point of that analogy is that the engineer designed execution chambers for Nazis. The engineers who designed the Sherman tank, the Garand rifle, or the Spitfire fighter plane also built weapons, weapons that killed people, but the judgment of history is that those people needed to be killed and thank God for the engineers who made that possible.
So, there are two aspects of that: first, do you trust the people you're designing a weapon for to use it for justifiable purposes, and second, how does the weapon itself influence whether it can be used for just or unjust reasons? Gas chambers, for example, can only be used to kill someone whom you are already able to coerce into entering it; its only use is to murder a helpless prisoner. A Spitfire or Hurricane can shoot down bombers but not necessarily do that much damage on the ground. Orwell had an interesting perspective on this question: "Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak."
I really don't have answers. The stance of, "weapons equals bad, therefore it's wrong to ever help design weapons" is a pacifist notion, and maybe that appeals to you, but if you're not a pacifist, it becomes a complicated question with certain political ramifications.
So, there are two aspects of that: first, do you trust the people you're designing a weapon for to use it for justifiable purposes, and second, how does the weapon itself influence whether it can be used for just or unjust reasons? Gas chambers, for example, can only be used to kill someone whom you are already able to coerce into entering it; its only use is to murder a helpless prisoner. A Spitfire or Hurricane can shoot down bombers but not necessarily do that much damage on the ground. Orwell had an interesting perspective on this question: "Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak."
I really don't have answers. The stance of, "weapons equals bad, therefore it's wrong to ever help design weapons" is a pacifist notion, and maybe that appeals to you, but if you're not a pacifist, it becomes a complicated question with certain political ramifications.
>incredibly valid for Silicon Valley engineers these days
If one could engineer a solution to save lives, but instead uses his/her talents to build the nth iteration of, say, a food delivery app, does he/she bear any ethical culpability?
Because it seems the bigger challenge for engineers is not avoiding overt evil, but in the opportunity cost of spending their time on work of significantly lesser consequence than their talents might allow.
If one could engineer a solution to save lives, but instead uses his/her talents to build the nth iteration of, say, a food delivery app, does he/she bear any ethical culpability?
Because it seems the bigger challenge for engineers is not avoiding overt evil, but in the opportunity cost of spending their time on work of significantly lesser consequence than their talents might allow.
I think you're taking the idea too far. look at what the civil engineers have:
https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/
Yes, yes, we have a responsibility to not defraud people, and to not work on obviously evil projects, and even to speak out if your employer is, say, building a bridge that is not up to the clearly defined, established standards. (which is super different from when you think a bridge will collapse, but can't explain why in a way that other people can understand. This parenthetical part is particularly important, I think.)
But we are free humans, and if we want to waste our lives on trivial things, so long as those trivial things don't hurt others, that's our choice. We are humans, and humans need entertainment, we need play.
https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/
Yes, yes, we have a responsibility to not defraud people, and to not work on obviously evil projects, and even to speak out if your employer is, say, building a bridge that is not up to the clearly defined, established standards. (which is super different from when you think a bridge will collapse, but can't explain why in a way that other people can understand. This parenthetical part is particularly important, I think.)
But we are free humans, and if we want to waste our lives on trivial things, so long as those trivial things don't hurt others, that's our choice. We are humans, and humans need entertainment, we need play.
>look at what the civil engineers have
Well, that's a narrow view of ethical guidelines in conducting one's work. We all generally agree that people shouldn't be evil.
My question sits above that. Is it enough for a moral society to simply decline to do evil? Or do we have a responsibility beyond that? And if it's the latter, then whose responsibility is it?
Well, that's a narrow view of ethical guidelines in conducting one's work. We all generally agree that people shouldn't be evil.
My question sits above that. Is it enough for a moral society to simply decline to do evil? Or do we have a responsibility beyond that? And if it's the latter, then whose responsibility is it?
Declining to do evil, with real standards for what that means is, at the very least, a good first step, and a possible one.
Engineers, like most human beings, are free to waste their talent. It wouldn't be nice to demand some kind of moral responsibility from engineers just because they can do more. How they live would be up to them, and free market solution would be far better terms under which they would be convinced to do more.
Yes, we're all free to choose, which might include doing things that are overtly immoral (as in the parent discussion).
My question was whether it's just as immoral a choice to not use one's potential to help people as it is to use one's talent to overtly harm people.
My question was whether it's just as immoral a choice to not use one's potential to help people as it is to use one's talent to overtly harm people.
>My question was whether it's just as immoral a choice to not use one's potential to help people as it is to use one's talent to overtly harm people.
Is the answer to that not obvious? It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea.
Is the answer to that not obvious? It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea.
The suggestion that it might be obvious is central to the question and what makes it interesting (to me).
Because, yes, it would seem obvious.
>It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea.
a) you're using legal definitions when the question is about morality and b) it's not negligence to actively choose one path over another. It's simply making a decision, and I was asking if that decision can be considered a moral one.
Started off as a philosophical question, but seems to have gone a bit literal. Oh well, it happens.
Because, yes, it would seem obvious.
>It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea.
a) you're using legal definitions when the question is about morality and b) it's not negligence to actively choose one path over another. It's simply making a decision, and I was asking if that decision can be considered a moral one.
Started off as a philosophical question, but seems to have gone a bit literal. Oh well, it happens.
>a) you're using legal definitions when the question is about morality
You don't think the legal differences between those two things were based on perceived immorality?
You don't think the legal differences between those two things were based on perceived immorality?
So youre saying we need another messaging app?
just a reminder: you are writing this over the internet - that one was funded by the pentagon too (darpanet)
http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/jan95/ccr-9501-clark.pdf Here they say that the design of the internet was very much determined by the military priorities of the project (Telcos had different priorities so they came up with OSI where the link layer is supposed to be reliable, as opposed to DARPANET/IP, where the link layer/IP routing is dumb and the endpoint is smart; this allowed link layer to be pluggable and IP routers to be cheap)
http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/jan95/ccr-9501-clark.pdf Here they say that the design of the internet was very much determined by the military priorities of the project (Telcos had different priorities so they came up with OSI where the link layer is supposed to be reliable, as opposed to DARPANET/IP, where the link layer/IP routing is dumb and the endpoint is smart; this allowed link layer to be pluggable and IP routers to be cheap)
There is a huge difference between creating a network protocol and designing autonomous killer drones.
I think an even more apt example is that the US military was the prime funding for the first integrated circuits.
Self driving vehicles were originally funded by DARPA with the idea to use them in combat. Now self driving vehicles are our best hope to significantly reduce road kills. And that will generate a deficit in organ donors. Ethics are complicated.
Well, self driving cars will/might make well over a third of the workforce redundant (the brother of my wife is a driver, that makes it personal for me), I think that this has the potential to create major tensions within society. My point is that innovations have the potential to be applied in different contexts. So what?
You're absolutely right! There's a huge difference. One is a general solution to the general problem of how to move data around in an organized fashion and the other is a specific solution to the specific problem of wanting murderbots.
That said, the approach of some of the commentors here is that the only acceptable approach is to refuse to work on anything that could ever be "weaponized". It's possible that the distinction you've so clearly and correctly pointed to could stand to be more compatible with this stance.
Autonomous murderbots are highly likely to depend on network protocols, among other things.
That said, the approach of some of the commentors here is that the only acceptable approach is to refuse to work on anything that could ever be "weaponized". It's possible that the distinction you've so clearly and correctly pointed to could stand to be more compatible with this stance.
Autonomous murderbots are highly likely to depend on network protocols, among other things.
Really? The killer drones couldn't communicate without said network protocols.
The point being that "killer drones" are by sole purpose immoral. You can hardly find a humanitarian use for them, while network protocols are pretty much amoral. You can use them for bad, but also for good.
Please excuse my manichaeism.
Please excuse my manichaeism.
One could say the same of atomic weapons, yet it's likely that nuclear weapons have saved more lives that we can even imagine. The impact of war was accelerating in raw numbers, and increasing in relative numbers, all the way up to WW2. 3-4% of the world's population was killed in WW2. In today's terms that would be ~270 million people. Think about that number for a minute. Let's put it in scales of 9/11s. During 9/11 2,996 people were killed. Our scaled WW2 had 90,120 times more deaths. That number is so absurdly large it's difficult to grasp. So put another way that's a 9/11 scale event every single day for 246 years. The United States, as a nation, was founded 242 years to give that number some scale. Just think about that! If each generation has children at 30 years old then another way of seeing that number would be a 9/11 event each and every day from today until 2 years after your great great great great great great great grandchild is born.
But then came the nuke. Nuclear weapons make traditional war between developed and nuclear capable nations basically impossible. Think about what the Cold War really was, or even what the geopolitical 'disagreements' of today are. Those are World Wars 3 and 4, averted because these wars would be unwinnable by any side. Like Einstein said, 'I'm not sure what World War 3 will be fought with, but the 4th will be fought with sticks and stones!'
Did the people developing nukes understand that they would finally create a weapon that immensely powerful that it would deter open unrestrained war for decades to come? It's possible, but I think that their motivation was something more straight forward - gain military superiority in the present, probably also mixed with a bit of scientific curiosity about the challenge of creating a nuclear bomb.
It's difficult to predict the future. The most awful and aweful weapon created in the history of mankind ended up creating the most unprecedented period of peace for mankind as well. This is also why I vehemently oppose nuclear disarmament. That's how you get WW3 if people actually disarm, though in reality it'd simply likely result in nations obfuscating their nuclear weapon programs and facilities. It's just a molten salt thorium reactor guys, come on - breeders are awesome!
But then came the nuke. Nuclear weapons make traditional war between developed and nuclear capable nations basically impossible. Think about what the Cold War really was, or even what the geopolitical 'disagreements' of today are. Those are World Wars 3 and 4, averted because these wars would be unwinnable by any side. Like Einstein said, 'I'm not sure what World War 3 will be fought with, but the 4th will be fought with sticks and stones!'
Did the people developing nukes understand that they would finally create a weapon that immensely powerful that it would deter open unrestrained war for decades to come? It's possible, but I think that their motivation was something more straight forward - gain military superiority in the present, probably also mixed with a bit of scientific curiosity about the challenge of creating a nuclear bomb.
It's difficult to predict the future. The most awful and aweful weapon created in the history of mankind ended up creating the most unprecedented period of peace for mankind as well. This is also why I vehemently oppose nuclear disarmament. That's how you get WW3 if people actually disarm, though in reality it'd simply likely result in nations obfuscating their nuclear weapon programs and facilities. It's just a molten salt thorium reactor guys, come on - breeders are awesome!
Peace for the west != peace for mankind
I don't think you understand the scale of these wars between developed nations. You could kill every single person in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and it wouldn't even begin to compare to the relative death toll that WW2 inflicted. And to be clear it is not because these countries are not heavily populated. Iraq, for instance, would be about the 7th largest country in Europe, nearly 4 times the size of Sweden for instance.
The loss of life when developed nations fight against each other is literally inconceivable in today's times which is why I went out of my way to try to give measurements that can help you grasp it. The entirety of the world's conflicts today is completely and absolutely negligible compared to WW2. And I'm focusing on WW2. The major point here is the WW3 that we have avoided. The reason for that avoidance is almost entirely because of nuclear weapons.
Finally, it's not just peace for the west. There is unprecedented peace throughout the vast majority of the world. The entirety of Africa and the Mideast account for less than 20% of the world's population.
The loss of life when developed nations fight against each other is literally inconceivable in today's times which is why I went out of my way to try to give measurements that can help you grasp it. The entirety of the world's conflicts today is completely and absolutely negligible compared to WW2. And I'm focusing on WW2. The major point here is the WW3 that we have avoided. The reason for that avoidance is almost entirely because of nuclear weapons.
Finally, it's not just peace for the west. There is unprecedented peace throughout the vast majority of the world. The entirety of Africa and the Mideast account for less than 20% of the world's population.
I did not say the death toll would compare. Im not arguing for or against nukes. Im only saying that the world today has not achieved peace for mankind.
The school my friend went to as a child no longer exists because it was bombed (Syria)
Wars are still happening today, just not with nukes. Every nation with nukes knows that it would be suicide to launch one.
The school my friend went to as a child no longer exists because it was bombed (Syria)
Wars are still happening today, just not with nukes. Every nation with nukes knows that it would be suicide to launch one.
I don't think minority populations are impressed by how wonderfully other populations are dying less?
Technology is often of dual use - one mans killer drone is another mans life saver. A similar device could be used to get injured people out of harms way, or to deliver aid/medicine/whatever.
Accurately dropping a flotation device onto drowning swimmers for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-drone-rescue/dr...
Would you deny "killer drones" to the armies and civilians fighting the Nazi Wermacht?
I don't see droning ISIS terrorists as immoral, sorry.
reliable and confidential communication is something that decides the outcome of wars. Coordination of the forces is one of the most important factors in military operations.
why? it was created so we could have reliable communications in the event of a total nuclear war, that is, an enabler
Nobody said "never make anything for DARPA". The point is just that you have to think through the consequences of your work. Making a network protocol for DARPA is different from making a casualty maximization algorithm for DARPA.
On the networking side of things: interesting that ROcE, infiniband and FC (depending on service class) all have reliability in the link layer, so the telcos did know something about their priorities.
I do not think that this is a simple black and white separation,but rather a dialectical one.
I used to find myself most of the times confused while using technologies whose CEOs, mission I do not agree with. It felt as if I was contradicting myself. But then I realized the dialectical nature of this relationship which is if you want to create something better, improve something it is only natural that you will do so using the existing tools available in your world.
A great example is Facebook. There are things you might not agree with, you might hate it but if you look closer you will see volunteer groups to political campaigns to marches and protests which are organized only via Facebook. One of such political activities one day could as well change Facebook or the world we live in drastically.
You can apply this to other cases. You might have an anti-capitalist philosophy podcast hosted on Amazon or Spotify or Apple which in essence contradicts the very existence of such companies. But in the end you are using them to deliver your message, cause change etc.
I am curious about what others think about this and how they feel about looking at it from a dialectical point of view as I am continuously thinking about this and still forming my thoughts.
I used to find myself most of the times confused while using technologies whose CEOs, mission I do not agree with. It felt as if I was contradicting myself. But then I realized the dialectical nature of this relationship which is if you want to create something better, improve something it is only natural that you will do so using the existing tools available in your world.
A great example is Facebook. There are things you might not agree with, you might hate it but if you look closer you will see volunteer groups to political campaigns to marches and protests which are organized only via Facebook. One of such political activities one day could as well change Facebook or the world we live in drastically.
You can apply this to other cases. You might have an anti-capitalist philosophy podcast hosted on Amazon or Spotify or Apple which in essence contradicts the very existence of such companies. But in the end you are using them to deliver your message, cause change etc.
I am curious about what others think about this and how they feel about looking at it from a dialectical point of view as I am continuously thinking about this and still forming my thoughts.
Whether military AI endsup being closer to a heart valve or a gas chamber, it's going to be built first by some nation.
But there is space for ethical contemplation during an arms race.
But there is space for ethical contemplation during an arms race.
Absolutely. As consequentialist first move, let me suggest that a first order principle for the US military is "Sweat now or bleed later". Better to work your ass off to develop superior tactics, discipline, and technology now than die later.
No one hates war more than soldiers.
No one hates war more than soldiers.
If soldiers hate war so much why do they join up?
The best way out of a terrible life for many poor people.
If you didn't do great in school and don't have rich parents to pay for college, the military in the US will look great with its education perks and chance to "see the world".
If you didn't do great in school and don't have rich parents to pay for college, the military in the US will look great with its education perks and chance to "see the world".
They believe in their country, what it represents, and are willing to sacrifice their life for it. In the US, it's the Constitution, to which they make an oath to upon joining.
Or they're broke, have their back against the wall, and can get good training and education through the military.
Or they're broke, have their back against the wall, and can get good training and education through the military.
Possibly because the one thing worse than war is being invaded, history has shown that
Predatory sign-up practices in low-income neighbourhoods, and a systemic and relentless propaganda campaign starting in nursery school that instils jingoist rhetoric and military worship.
To play devil's advocate, we (USA) have a volunteer military. Even if you think it's a "poverty draft" driven by structural unemployment and dearth of opportunities in left behind cities and rural areas it's still not conscription.
How should the military fill its ranks? Would you rather have a lottery?
How should the military fill its ranks? Would you rather have a lottery?
Same reason most people work on jobs they hate. Gotta work for money to live.
> And it won't be as easy as deciding between a heart valve and a gas chamber
That's the truth.
Did the engineers of the atomic bomb save millions of lives and usher in an era of unprecedented peace? Or did they slaughter millions of innocents and sow the seeds of humanity's destruction?
It's been 70 years; we've had plenty of time to make up our minds.
Many inventions are not so easily classified as innately good or evil.
That's the truth.
Did the engineers of the atomic bomb save millions of lives and usher in an era of unprecedented peace? Or did they slaughter millions of innocents and sow the seeds of humanity's destruction?
It's been 70 years; we've had plenty of time to make up our minds.
Many inventions are not so easily classified as innately good or evil.
From the Wikipedia article on Robert Kearns
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
>Kearns was a member of the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the U.S. CIA, during World War II.[1][2][3]
Somehow I don't think that Kearns would have had an issue with wriing software to analyze video footage for the military.
>Kearns was a member of the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the U.S. CIA, during World War II.[1][2][3]
Somehow I don't think that Kearns would have had an issue with wriing software to analyze video footage for the military.
I don't think you can ever blame the engineer who designs the weapon, unless it is obviously ethically problematic like, a better iron maiden (as an example, I know it's probably a hoax device).
Merely offering a force projecting capability is not evil.
If you look at world history, the only concrete definition of who has most political power is this: it's the party with the most capability for projecting violence in a given area.
Small close knit groups that live outside of large populations can live independently and do without military force. Once you have a large population with more or less fixed hearth and home the party with most violence projection capability owns them politically.
This dynamic is played in almost ridiculously minuscule scale in the peloponnesian wars of the greek city states of antiquity.
The pathological manifestation of this principle can be viewed, say, in the rise of ISIS and the Somali warlords.
While a modern state is seldom a benevolent actor, at least in the western countries it's the best of known alternatives.
In this framework violence is a key tool of the state, just like good governance, tax collection, etc.
Given that violence is a necessity, in my opinion designing military instruments in itself is not evil. It's not as good as designing new vaccines, so there is some ethical scale in the matter, but I'm damned if I can put it in concrete terms.
Merely offering a force projecting capability is not evil.
If you look at world history, the only concrete definition of who has most political power is this: it's the party with the most capability for projecting violence in a given area.
Small close knit groups that live outside of large populations can live independently and do without military force. Once you have a large population with more or less fixed hearth and home the party with most violence projection capability owns them politically.
This dynamic is played in almost ridiculously minuscule scale in the peloponnesian wars of the greek city states of antiquity.
The pathological manifestation of this principle can be viewed, say, in the rise of ISIS and the Somali warlords.
While a modern state is seldom a benevolent actor, at least in the western countries it's the best of known alternatives.
In this framework violence is a key tool of the state, just like good governance, tax collection, etc.
Given that violence is a necessity, in my opinion designing military instruments in itself is not evil. It's not as good as designing new vaccines, so there is some ethical scale in the matter, but I'm damned if I can put it in concrete terms.
The reason Rome was so influential was its military. Ditto for the US.
Are you sure it's a good idea to become less influential on the world stage?
Are you sure it's a good idea to become less influential on the world stage?
To me, that's the question. And people don't realize a lot of who we are and where we are is because our military presence. Atomic bomb anyone?
What gets me now, is how much the US economy and focus is on death and violence. Offensive death and violence. We're bombing people all over the Middle East. And have been for years. Tangentially, I find 'March for our Lives' ironic given the amount of, to me, unjustified, violence and death the US country exports to children and families around the world.
For self-defense only? In an ideal world, yea, invent the meanest things possible. That philosophy still is compatible with a strong military. But then again you have Gulf of Tonkin, etc., so who knows!?
Lately I've been telling myself this whole wargame is a game I'll never be privy to what's actually happening.
What gets me now, is how much the US economy and focus is on death and violence. Offensive death and violence. We're bombing people all over the Middle East. And have been for years. Tangentially, I find 'March for our Lives' ironic given the amount of, to me, unjustified, violence and death the US country exports to children and families around the world.
For self-defense only? In an ideal world, yea, invent the meanest things possible. That philosophy still is compatible with a strong military. But then again you have Gulf of Tonkin, etc., so who knows!?
Lately I've been telling myself this whole wargame is a game I'll never be privy to what's actually happening.
Is having killing machines with no human in the loop a good idea? because that's the way this is going. We don't need Skynet to have a dystopian future.
Is it ok to not have them and allow an adversary who does develop them to overwhelm your nation's outdated defenses and less efficient tactics, as Germany did with its tank blitzkriegs and diversion around the Maginot line?
The problem emerges when an actor most become a monster to win, sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction. I think that scifi shorts have the duty and power to show us the paths that certain developments entail. For example:
- Slaughterbots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw
- Last Day of War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJmTeBSEzU
- Slaughterbots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw
- Last Day of War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJmTeBSEzU
The reason US is so influential is its the most powerful world's economy and the issuer of world's reserve currency. Having big military is a consequence of that - if you can afford to have big military, you get it. And, also, if you have a big economy, you may need some ways to defend it from all kinds of threats - before they become so serious that they can hurt your economy.
[deleted]
> The reason Rome was so influential was its military. Ditto for the US.
I think people often have that twisted. A lot of the U.S.'s expansion is cultural, not military. That is to say: people liked what they were doing, and became a fan. Think: music, movies, and to some extent, literature, and now you might add software and consumer electronics to that list.
And even when looking at Rome, can you imagine how much harder those repeated annexations would have been if the Roman culture wasn't respected?
I'd say that being capable at least of defending oneself, independently, from most individual powers and believable coalitions, creates a certain amount of stability.
I think people often have that twisted. A lot of the U.S.'s expansion is cultural, not military. That is to say: people liked what they were doing, and became a fan. Think: music, movies, and to some extent, literature, and now you might add software and consumer electronics to that list.
And even when looking at Rome, can you imagine how much harder those repeated annexations would have been if the Roman culture wasn't respected?
I'd say that being capable at least of defending oneself, independently, from most individual powers and believable coalitions, creates a certain amount of stability.
Who can project force like the U.S. military? No one. For the most part it's used to enable people to have more say in how they're governed, modulo certain constraints. That's not to say we do it perfectly but we shouldn't underestimate how positively influential that military power is.
In USSR, before it collapsed, young people dreamt of having jeans (not everybody could get or afford them), listened to Western music and watched Western movies. Not because US army has secretly occupied USSR, but because Western culture was more attractive to them. Not everything is done with the military.
>Not everything is done with the military.
I'm not claiming it is, nor am I arguing that culture isn't also a factor. I'm saying that military presence shouldn't be discounted, as the parent seemed to be doing.
I'm not claiming it is, nor am I arguing that culture isn't also a factor. I'm saying that military presence shouldn't be discounted, as the parent seemed to be doing.
Agreed. And it's a position that I don't think many people realize.
I think you actually have the relationships reversed. Military power paves the way for projecting culture, not the other way around.
Realpolitik is meaningful; and everyone on the left seems to have forgotten about it (I say this as an unabashed progressive liberal).
The US’ prime advantage in the 20th century was the fact that basically the rest of the industrialized world was completely destroyed twice — and then they paid the United States to help them rebuild. It wasn’t until the 70s that the US’ reliance on oil became heavy enough to exploit strategically, but by then we had built an entire post-industrial economy a decade ahead of Europe and two decades ahead of the rest of the world. We helped Japan do the same because they were basically a puppet state and gave us a foothold in Asia to serve as a buffer with Russia.
Does that sound like cultural expansion driving the military, or the military goals driving the cultural expansion?
Realpolitik is meaningful; and everyone on the left seems to have forgotten about it (I say this as an unabashed progressive liberal).
The US’ prime advantage in the 20th century was the fact that basically the rest of the industrialized world was completely destroyed twice — and then they paid the United States to help them rebuild. It wasn’t until the 70s that the US’ reliance on oil became heavy enough to exploit strategically, but by then we had built an entire post-industrial economy a decade ahead of Europe and two decades ahead of the rest of the world. We helped Japan do the same because they were basically a puppet state and gave us a foothold in Asia to serve as a buffer with Russia.
Does that sound like cultural expansion driving the military, or the military goals driving the cultural expansion?
Yea, but how much cultural influence comes back to the military? Internet? Darpa. Hollywood? CIA pitches/vets certain scripts. Modern art? A CIA weapon during the cold war.
The list goes on and on.
The list goes on and on.
American music and movies, until recently, did not originate in any large part from CIA psy-ops. Popular software products like the ones produced by Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. don't really have much to do with the defense industry, at least beyond military being the first major customers for computers.
Defense spending is a small parasite on an enormous private market for cultural and consumer products, of which the U.S. is and was a major exporter, respectively.
Added:
Defense agencies drive innovation because they have external constraints which force them to try to procure things which haven't yet been invented. It's similar to the way that automobile races are used to drive auto innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention, and necessity is not unique to defense, but defense necessities tend to produce extreme engineering efforts.
Defense spending is a small parasite on an enormous private market for cultural and consumer products, of which the U.S. is and was a major exporter, respectively.
Added:
Defense agencies drive innovation because they have external constraints which force them to try to procure things which haven't yet been invented. It's similar to the way that automobile races are used to drive auto innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention, and necessity is not unique to defense, but defense necessities tend to produce extreme engineering efforts.
The engineers in both cases are not essential to the outcomes. Engineers or craftsmen, or any other workers execute tasks put forth to them by society that gave them birth and education. Any person in the society has some influence, but clearly more influence is the hands of the leaders and organizers.
But, there is power in organizing, or unionizing, for collective bargaining.
But, there is power in organizing, or unionizing, for collective bargaining.
This reminds me of the movie "Cube", which is about a sadistic torture chamber built by accident through a network of government sub-contractors who each built some innocuous part of the thing, which was then assembled through layers of opaque bureaucracy. It's a terrible film, but I always thought that premise was hilarious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film)
That defense didn’t work at Nuremberg.
It's not a defense. It doesn't absolve anyone of personal responsibility.
> Who designed the gas chambers at Auschwitz? An engineer did that, too.
Well, given how unimaginative a leap the national socialists took from the national fumigation program to the gas chambers, I doubt there was much more to it than "take bug poison room tech, use it on humans".
There's no such thing as an "engineer" in the real world, and there's almost always somebody more unscrupulous, devout, or patriotic than you who knows or is willing to learn what it takes to finish the job, and school is not going to get in the way.
Added: Engineering is a practice, not an immutable identity. Even if you publicly shame all the "engineers" away from contributing to an effort you disagree with, replacing them is a matter of learning enough of the practice to complete the task. Even if we were just talking about what is in paper books today, it's hard to say that anyone could have control over who is or isn't capable of engineering efforts.
Well, given how unimaginative a leap the national socialists took from the national fumigation program to the gas chambers, I doubt there was much more to it than "take bug poison room tech, use it on humans".
There's no such thing as an "engineer" in the real world, and there's almost always somebody more unscrupulous, devout, or patriotic than you who knows or is willing to learn what it takes to finish the job, and school is not going to get in the way.
Added: Engineering is a practice, not an immutable identity. Even if you publicly shame all the "engineers" away from contributing to an effort you disagree with, replacing them is a matter of learning enough of the practice to complete the task. Even if we were just talking about what is in paper books today, it's hard to say that anyone could have control over who is or isn't capable of engineering efforts.
> ... there's almost always somebody more unscrupulous, devout, or patriotic than you who knows or is willing to learn what it takes to finish the job ...
If you believe that doing something is wrong, the idea that someone more unscrupulous will do it if you do not must not be used as an excuse for doing that thing yourself. Giving in to this notion will prove yourself to be the one who is unscrupulous.
If you believe that doing something is wrong, the idea that someone more unscrupulous will do it if you do not must not be used as an excuse for doing that thing yourself. Giving in to this notion will prove yourself to be the one who is unscrupulous.
> If you believe that doing something is wrong, the idea that someone more unscrupulous will do it if you do not must not be used as an excuse for doing that thing yourself.
By involving yourself, you gain the opportunity to do the right thing (for the given the circumstances). If quitting accomplishes the same thing as sabotage or internal lobbying, then by all means.
By involving yourself, you gain the opportunity to do the right thing (for the given the circumstances). If quitting accomplishes the same thing as sabotage or internal lobbying, then by all means.
In 2018, the following statements are true:
1. If you're on an active battlefield, both sides have already agreed that killing people is morally justified.
2. If the enemy is shooting at you, he is not interested in the ethics of killing someone on a battlefield.
3. If ethics helped wars end, there would be a US Army 27th Ethics Brigade to parachute in, but there's not and probably never will be.
If on a battlefield, given a choice between holding scrupulous ideals and living, most people would choose living.
1. If you're on an active battlefield, both sides have already agreed that killing people is morally justified.
2. If the enemy is shooting at you, he is not interested in the ethics of killing someone on a battlefield.
3. If ethics helped wars end, there would be a US Army 27th Ethics Brigade to parachute in, but there's not and probably never will be.
If on a battlefield, given a choice between holding scrupulous ideals and living, most people would choose living.
What's the point of life if you are forced to be evil, unquestionably and irrevocably? Why so many vets have PTSD and end up doing crazy things?
You have it backwatds.
If someone wasn't willing to kill someone else on your country's behalf, most likely you wouldn't have the freedom to ask that question.
Edited to add:
The metaphysical question you posted might be better phrased to ask:
What's the point of life if someone else is willing to extinguish it?
If someone wasn't willing to kill someone else on your country's behalf, most likely you wouldn't have the freedom to ask that question.
Edited to add:
The metaphysical question you posted might be better phrased to ask:
What's the point of life if someone else is willing to extinguish it?
I completely support the employees but it is criminal that this NYT article does not mention the extensive roots of Silicon Valley in Pentagon funding. SV as a whole is substantially a creation of military spending.
Just recently in the AI space:
- Siri was spun out of a Pentagon project -- look up SRI International and CALO. Its purpose: a "soldier’s servant".[1]
- Autonomous driving is a direct evolution of Pentagon-funded efforts -- see DARPA Grand Challenge.
And it's not just funding the early research, it's procurement like this too. Military procurement has also supported the development of technologies when the commercial market couldn't.
Again, I support the employees and hate the fact that in order to develop medical lasers we first have to figure out how to shoot down missiles with them. It's hugely inefficient, could spell our doom, and if you think about it, fundamentally undemocratic. (Gives elites more power to direct taxpayer dollars under the rubric of defense.) But this should be a basic part of any story on how Silicon Valley works.
And to think that SV has a large population of supposedly "small government" Libertarian Capitalists... oh, the mental gymnastics in that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALO
Just recently in the AI space:
- Siri was spun out of a Pentagon project -- look up SRI International and CALO. Its purpose: a "soldier’s servant".[1]
- Autonomous driving is a direct evolution of Pentagon-funded efforts -- see DARPA Grand Challenge.
And it's not just funding the early research, it's procurement like this too. Military procurement has also supported the development of technologies when the commercial market couldn't.
Again, I support the employees and hate the fact that in order to develop medical lasers we first have to figure out how to shoot down missiles with them. It's hugely inefficient, could spell our doom, and if you think about it, fundamentally undemocratic. (Gives elites more power to direct taxpayer dollars under the rubric of defense.) But this should be a basic part of any story on how Silicon Valley works.
And to think that SV has a large population of supposedly "small government" Libertarian Capitalists... oh, the mental gymnastics in that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALO
I can really recommend Waldrop's The Dream Machine [1]. It is a pretty detailed description of the different driving forces that let to the Internet, personal computers, AI research etc. Yes, a lot was influenced by the US military and DARPA, starting with RADAR systems and the need for computation in WW2 and continuing with the cold war, the Sputnik shock and increased research spending afterwards. On the other hand, a lot of the folks involved certainly had no militaristic attitude or intentions. A lot of government funding early on sparked an amazing development, the foundations of the things we work with today.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Machine-Licklider-Revolution-Co...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Machine-Licklider-Revolution-Co...
> SV as a whole is substantially a creation of military spending.
This is a national budget problem. If you're in the tech world long enough, it becomes pretty clear that the only way to get Big funding is through military affiliation.
This puts a huge selective bias on what kind of technology projects actually get big funding, and further it prevents the benefits of those projects from reaching the community for years, because the military overlords demand secrecy sole use of the technology until it gets superceded.
We need to cut a huge chunk out of the military budget and give it directly to the tech sector, so that big innovative projects are actually possible without having to be military.
This is a national budget problem. If you're in the tech world long enough, it becomes pretty clear that the only way to get Big funding is through military affiliation.
This puts a huge selective bias on what kind of technology projects actually get big funding, and further it prevents the benefits of those projects from reaching the community for years, because the military overlords demand secrecy sole use of the technology until it gets superceded.
We need to cut a huge chunk out of the military budget and give it directly to the tech sector, so that big innovative projects are actually possible without having to be military.
>This is a national budget problem
Lookup "the secret history of silicon valley". There was no tech world in the bay and massive funding for radar research post-WW2 bootstrapped what is now silicon valley.
It's not a national budget problem, it's just the history of why things happened in SV.
Lookup "the secret history of silicon valley". There was no tech world in the bay and massive funding for radar research post-WW2 bootstrapped what is now silicon valley.
It's not a national budget problem, it's just the history of why things happened in SV.
Doesn't the recent (last 10yrs) VC splash do that? Hard to tell numbers since military spending has so many routes, but i'd love to see numbers on the two channels.
No, they are not parallel channels. Generally speaking high tech develops over a multi decade timeframe. Govt agencies like DARPA play a lead role in the earliest phase (often measured in double digit years). VCs pick outputs that have commercial potential and pour money into the sector.
That’s why it’s wrong to just compare the absolute amounts invested — it’s when it’s invested.
That’s why it’s wrong to just compare the absolute amounts invested — it’s when it’s invested.
It starts well before Silicon Valley, Engineering Departments get large portions of their revenues through Defense programs.
MIT's Lincoln Laboratory made 27% of their revenue (roughly a billion dollars) in 2016. That's one research center.
http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html
MIT's Lincoln Laboratory made 27% of their revenue (roughly a billion dollars) in 2016. That's one research center.
http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html
"Engineering" as a concept itself has roots in military application. The term "civil engineer" was coined precisely to distinguish the application of engineering techniques outside of the native context of military works.
Yea, Leonardo da Vinci was a military engineer at one point.
I bet that number gets a lot bigger if you're willing to consider donations from the defense industry as well. I seem to remember Raytheon and Lockheed Martin's logos displayed on the donors wall in the Huang Engineering Building at Stanford.
Steve Blank has a great presentation on the "Secret History of Silicon Valley" and the military roots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uA2bLrl_9Q
Internet was a creation of DARPA. And that D stands for Defense.
I believe the silicon research/production that started Silicon Valley was for military needs. Military paid for it.
First Computer of US and Britain? It was funded and created during war for military purposes.
And what about China and Russia? Will THEY stop AI research just because Google employees demand it?
I believe the silicon research/production that started Silicon Valley was for military needs. Military paid for it.
First Computer of US and Britain? It was funded and created during war for military purposes.
And what about China and Russia? Will THEY stop AI research just because Google employees demand it?
Neither Ford nor the Right Brothers were military. Xerox PARC wasn't. Tesla isn't.
Innovation doesn't need defense support, innovation will come anyway. We just choose to allocate much of our resources to the military so that's where it gets spent. Later we can claim it as a win for defense. A happy surprise benefit of trying to kill each other.
All you need is people, time and money. Profit.
Many years ago I choose not to work on a local defense project. I found out that the project had ties to Chinese defense. I'm fine with my choice because I find their leadership somewhat oppressive.
Another time I saw Iranians on the campus. Another awesome opportunity for interesting work that some might not want to get involved in.
I know someone who did work for Mugabe. Hey, cool project. It's easy when you justify it.
Innovation doesn't need defense support, innovation will come anyway. We just choose to allocate much of our resources to the military so that's where it gets spent. Later we can claim it as a win for defense. A happy surprise benefit of trying to kill each other.
All you need is people, time and money. Profit.
Many years ago I choose not to work on a local defense project. I found out that the project had ties to Chinese defense. I'm fine with my choice because I find their leadership somewhat oppressive.
Another time I saw Iranians on the campus. Another awesome opportunity for interesting work that some might not want to get involved in.
I know someone who did work for Mugabe. Hey, cool project. It's easy when you justify it.
To your knowledge.
Yes, you need time money and profit. Agreed. But if those things go against the military's goals, or you're unable to convince them otherwise, you're in trouble. At a certain scale you need to have the nod of those in power. It's a fact of reality on this earth. I'm not saying it's good or bad.
And I don't know how millions being lifted out of poverty, 10000 miles of high-speed rail in ten years, and so on, in China is necessarily oppressive. Or how the sheer virtue of someone being Iranian makes the project bad. I'm getting a lot of black and white vibes.
Yes, you need time money and profit. Agreed. But if those things go against the military's goals, or you're unable to convince them otherwise, you're in trouble. At a certain scale you need to have the nod of those in power. It's a fact of reality on this earth. I'm not saying it's good or bad.
And I don't know how millions being lifted out of poverty, 10000 miles of high-speed rail in ten years, and so on, in China is necessarily oppressive. Or how the sheer virtue of someone being Iranian makes the project bad. I'm getting a lot of black and white vibes.
> to your knowledge
Well yeah but good luck proving PARC was a secret defense contractor. We can cherry pick examples of tech or benefits all day. A few good defense ones doesn't mean defense is good.
You can have an oppressive government and still have a lot of good come out of it. China is amazing. Their people still aren't free. In fact you can have a murderous military and still have benefits to humanity emerge. The military is still there to kill people and I'd rather not be part of that.
Projects were chosen as examples of countries that are American rivals, for effect and the benefit of US readers. Fun well-funded Chinese research projects might one day kill you. I would be as unhappy working on a defense project for any country, including my own. the point was "someone on the other side might have the same justifications".
We'd all be better off if the world sent more defense money to other parts of our lives. It's not the defense aspect that makes the projects good or possible, it's that defense has our money. Send the money directly to tech or research, same benefits would emerge.
We can't change our countries' budgets but we can stop idolising the military as funder. Sure DARPA but they hooked up a few universities. Pics of cats and porn (probably not military but good luck proving otherwise) took us the rest of the way.
> Black and white vibes
Play the ball not the man
Well yeah but good luck proving PARC was a secret defense contractor. We can cherry pick examples of tech or benefits all day. A few good defense ones doesn't mean defense is good.
You can have an oppressive government and still have a lot of good come out of it. China is amazing. Their people still aren't free. In fact you can have a murderous military and still have benefits to humanity emerge. The military is still there to kill people and I'd rather not be part of that.
Projects were chosen as examples of countries that are American rivals, for effect and the benefit of US readers. Fun well-funded Chinese research projects might one day kill you. I would be as unhappy working on a defense project for any country, including my own. the point was "someone on the other side might have the same justifications".
We'd all be better off if the world sent more defense money to other parts of our lives. It's not the defense aspect that makes the projects good or possible, it's that defense has our money. Send the money directly to tech or research, same benefits would emerge.
We can't change our countries' budgets but we can stop idolising the military as funder. Sure DARPA but they hooked up a few universities. Pics of cats and porn (probably not military but good luck proving otherwise) took us the rest of the way.
> Black and white vibes
Play the ball not the man
While you are certainly correct that the military has provided the genesis of various valuable technologies, it doesn't have to continue to be that way. We could choose to expend our limited resources on more meaningful, and socially responsible, outlets. This move by Google employees is to me a welcome tug against the hopelessly chaotic military machine, and a push back against continued military involvement in SV affairs. I'm happy to see individuals taking this position.
I'd give such a political movement a 75% chance of being able to disrupt research funding from DARPA and a 5% chance of being able to replace it.
I think that's a great idea. And I support it. But something inside me says it's idealistic and not in touch with a baser human nature of something akin to a 'dog-eat-dog' mentality.
Just because the United States has decided in the past that the only way we are allowed to fund tech R&D is through the military budget doesn't mean that it is the only way it could possibly be done.
The internet itself is an evolution of darpa net.
And that means that I have to make anything that DARPA asks for from now until the end of time?
I mean, if you want to go back far enough, many major results in optimization theory and operations research started in one form or another as a project to aid with military logistics. Now those are fundamental tools inside and outside SV.
Agreed. NYT is drivel, table scraps us plebes get to the actual game that is being played.
I've called SV the military's generalized R&D department.
I've called SV the military's generalized R&D department.
Libertarianism is an ideology that relies on mental gymnastics.
Every ideology oversimplifies the world. Economics are complex and humans can't reason about emergent behavior from societies of other humans very accurately.
However, if you think an ideology is has logical errors and requires mental gymnastics, you likely don't understand it well enough to intelligently criticize it.
However, if you think an ideology is has logical errors and requires mental gymnastics, you likely don't understand it well enough to intelligently criticize it.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It leads to generic flamewars which are basically all the same and therefore off topic here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ORACLE was a CIA contract, and you can imagine what they did with that probably would make your stomach turn if you knew every detail.
> SV as a whole is substantially a creation of military spending.
That's true, but not really in the general way you argue. Military spending on bay area R&D has been more or less insignificant for the entirety of the internet era. It exists, sure, but it's not driving meaningful revenue for any of the big players. Silicon Valley since the mid 90's has been a consumer thing only.
And even in the genesis of the valley, it was just one serendipitous application (missile guidance systems, which were willing to pay huge sums for early transistors which were literally 100x lighter than vacuum tubes).
That's true, but not really in the general way you argue. Military spending on bay area R&D has been more or less insignificant for the entirety of the internet era. It exists, sure, but it's not driving meaningful revenue for any of the big players. Silicon Valley since the mid 90's has been a consumer thing only.
And even in the genesis of the valley, it was just one serendipitous application (missile guidance systems, which were willing to pay huge sums for early transistors which were literally 100x lighter than vacuum tubes).
> Military spending on bay area R&D has been more or less insignificant for the entirety of the internet era.
This is ridiculously false. SV receives billions of dollars from the Pentagon, the CIA, and a variety of other government agencies annually. Here is just one example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/peter-thi...
This is ridiculously false. SV receives billions of dollars from the Pentagon, the CIA, and a variety of other government agencies annually. Here is just one example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/peter-thi...
And that's just direct grants. The bigger role is, DARPA nurtures core tech in its earliest stages when commercial viability is still a decade or more off. The "big players in SV" are picking the fruit and bringing it to market, often for nominal technology transfer fees if any. It's like passing the baton from taxpayers to VCs -- but guess who keeps most of the profit.
You're having a Dr. Evil moment. "Billions of dollars" doesn't go very far in this context. Apple Computer's revenue alone was two orders of magnitude higher than that. Military spending is noise relative to consumer revenue in the valley.
Sorry, you just aren't informed on the matter. Not only does the military, CIA and other agencies pour billions in R&D development to SV, the CIA has run a hedge fund for almost 20 years that has significant ownership in hundreds of SV companies.
Here is a list of 219 tech companies owned in whole or part by the CIA hedge fund (just the ones they let us know about):
https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/
Here is their logo, which speaks for itself:
https://www.iqt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/About-venn-di...
The CIA hedge fund and billions in R&D money are in addition to an unknown portion of the "black budget" controlled by various spy agencies, which is over $80 billion dollars this year.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/28/trump-admin...
The truth is that the tech industry is brimming with money from the military and spy agencies - and this is just what we know about.
Here is a list of 219 tech companies owned in whole or part by the CIA hedge fund (just the ones they let us know about):
https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/
Here is their logo, which speaks for itself:
https://www.iqt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/About-venn-di...
The CIA hedge fund and billions in R&D money are in addition to an unknown portion of the "black budget" controlled by various spy agencies, which is over $80 billion dollars this year.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/28/trump-admin...
The truth is that the tech industry is brimming with money from the military and spy agencies - and this is just what we know about.
Agreed. Thanks for sharing links. There's also an assumption that military necessarily equals evil. Do you think everyone who works for the NSA is out to curb our civil rights? It's not possible. And in fact, it's what a lot of people who work for the government or military believe in protecting.
There's a debate to be had over the "good" or "evil" that results in government/intelligence/military involvement in tech companies. In order to have a reasoned debate, people have to be aware of the facts. As evidenced in this thread (and elsewhere), many people are unaware of just how entwined our sprawling government and tax-payer funded quasi-government agencies are with "private" tech companies and others in SV.
I agree with you.
Except I have found this thread to be very novel, thought provoking, and seemingly well informed.
Except I have found this thread to be very novel, thought provoking, and seemingly well informed.
Palantir is just a minuscule part of SV ecosystem, entirely insignificant in the overall picture.
>And to think that SV has a large population of supposedly "small government" Libertarian Capitalists
Not only that, but when Youtube and Google block content, censor people, or otherwise prevent free speech, the common rejoinder is "they are private companies, they don't have to abide by the 1st amendment". Any company that is received taxpayer money, whether through direct subsidies, grants, partnerership, or any other avenue, ceases to be a "private company". I believe strongly that if you are truly private, and you operate entirely with your own private funds, and wholly-owned, privately purchased infrastructure, you are free to say and do what you want - silence any voice or opinion that you don't like. But once you receive public funds, in any context, along with that comes with the responsibility to the public. Despite being "the way it works" currently, this system is incredibly corrupt and logically inconsistent. In a world where the Constitution was respected, enforced and held inviolate, a company that received public funds (like Google) would not be allowed to declare themselves a private company with total autonomy on one hand, and grab countless millions in taxpayer money in the other.
Not only that, but when Youtube and Google block content, censor people, or otherwise prevent free speech, the common rejoinder is "they are private companies, they don't have to abide by the 1st amendment". Any company that is received taxpayer money, whether through direct subsidies, grants, partnerership, or any other avenue, ceases to be a "private company". I believe strongly that if you are truly private, and you operate entirely with your own private funds, and wholly-owned, privately purchased infrastructure, you are free to say and do what you want - silence any voice or opinion that you don't like. But once you receive public funds, in any context, along with that comes with the responsibility to the public. Despite being "the way it works" currently, this system is incredibly corrupt and logically inconsistent. In a world where the Constitution was respected, enforced and held inviolate, a company that received public funds (like Google) would not be allowed to declare themselves a private company with total autonomy on one hand, and grab countless millions in taxpayer money in the other.
Where does one draw a line these days among the personal, the moral, the legal, and the political?
The military application in question is legal and is approved by a duly elected government that supports it politically. In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and applications. In other words, doing your job is personal and, as long as you do it honestly and work hard, you should not be faulted for doing it as requested by your employer. That was always the standard. What then is the new element from which this sort of employee-driven demand arises? Is it morality? In other words, if I help develop A.I. that can be used for all sorts of things, one of which happens to be military-related, is the effort "evil" if the employer for whom I develop it agrees contractually to provide it to the government for a wartime/military use that can kill people? Do I really make a difference for the good if I convince my employer not to do this if all this means is that the company down the street gets the contract and the military gets the same results, albeit from a different vendor? If this is so, then I assume that you as an employee can make no practical difference in making the world better by insisting that your employer forego this particular form of contracting opportunity. If you succeed, your employer misses an opportunity but the evil you see being released into the world still gets released. It just means that you do not personally contribute to the development effort by which it is made possible.
Of course, it might theoretically be possible to persuade all persons working in the field of A.I. to ban further work that directly helps the military. But that would seem a practical impossibility. Many people in all countries believe that military technology of all kinds is proper, legal, and politically supportable for purposes of self-defense or for some other overriding purpose they deem proper. And certainly, there are bad people throughout the world who are eager to use any technology that comes their way for overtly evil purposes such as misuse of an atomic bomb. Unless and until human nature is fundamentally transformed, that will never change.
So, what is the answer in a country such as the United States where people and companies have the freedom to develop A.I. for any lawful purpose and where some inevitably will do so for a military purpose of which you disapprove?
You are then left only with a political solution: use political means to gain control of the government and the military and apply the force of law to ban the military use of which you disapprove.
So this is either a personal act of futility by the Google employees or it is a case by which they cannot separate the personal from the political and thereby insist that their employer sacrifice particular economic opportunities to ensure that your personal actions do not support a political outcome of which you disapprove.
Even then, does this mean that your employer should cease working on A.I. altogether? For, just as cash is fungible, so too is technology. Every improvement you make in A.I. might have an immediate use of x for your employer but, as humans collectively do this for all sorts of improvements, the results are there for the taking in the future for military applications of all kinds. In other words, you cannot put your improvement in a box or control it so as to limit its future uses (at least not in a free society). The computing technology of recent decades undoubtedly has bettered many aspects of life but it has also greatly magnified the lethality and utility of military applications so as to make the world far less safe. And this was inevitable unless a supervening agency were to have used forcible and totalitarian means to suppress such technological development from inception. Since no such supervening agency existed or even can exist in a free society, does this mean that all engineers and technical developers have blood on their hands because, ultimately, things they have done were used for applications of which they disapproved? Of course it does not. Nor would people today working on A.I. be held morally or legally responsible for ultimate downstream uses made of their work of which they would not morally approve today.
But this brings us back full circle. In the long run, you cannot stop such uses (or misuses) made from your technical development work. Nor can you be held responsible for them even though you contributed to them in some remote degree through your work efforts. Why then should it make a difference if your direct work efforts for a company like Google are applied to a military application of which you do not approve but which is legal, politically approved by the governing authorities, and will happen anyway regardless of whether Google is involved?
The puritans of old tried controlling the morality of others by shunning and shaming and doing it to an extreme degree. They failed miserably in their efforts because humanity is what it is and followed its own course without regard to external religious constraints.
This sort of effort by Google employees is obviously different in that it is not religiously driven but does it amount to anything more than a shunning-and-shaming method for trying to impose one's sense of morality on others by signaling that this way lies righteousness and everywhere else lies evil?
If this is what "don't be evil" now means, then Google will need lots of help going forward because every cause under the sun can be used in the same way to shun and shame. We then have management by a corporate board as may be swayed to and fro by any organized protest of the moment.
Whatever this is, and however it might be defensible in "sending a message" or whatever, it is a sure way to put a company at a competitive disadvantage while accomplishing nothing practically. It may further political goals but, if those are the goals, better just to try to advance them directly and not by attempting to shun and shame your employer (and your co-workers who may disagree with you) into submission. The personal need not be political. If it does become that way, a new form of puritanism will hold full sway to the detriment of all.
The military application in question is legal and is approved by a duly elected government that supports it politically. In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and applications. In other words, doing your job is personal and, as long as you do it honestly and work hard, you should not be faulted for doing it as requested by your employer. That was always the standard. What then is the new element from which this sort of employee-driven demand arises? Is it morality? In other words, if I help develop A.I. that can be used for all sorts of things, one of which happens to be military-related, is the effort "evil" if the employer for whom I develop it agrees contractually to provide it to the government for a wartime/military use that can kill people? Do I really make a difference for the good if I convince my employer not to do this if all this means is that the company down the street gets the contract and the military gets the same results, albeit from a different vendor? If this is so, then I assume that you as an employee can make no practical difference in making the world better by insisting that your employer forego this particular form of contracting opportunity. If you succeed, your employer misses an opportunity but the evil you see being released into the world still gets released. It just means that you do not personally contribute to the development effort by which it is made possible.
Of course, it might theoretically be possible to persuade all persons working in the field of A.I. to ban further work that directly helps the military. But that would seem a practical impossibility. Many people in all countries believe that military technology of all kinds is proper, legal, and politically supportable for purposes of self-defense or for some other overriding purpose they deem proper. And certainly, there are bad people throughout the world who are eager to use any technology that comes their way for overtly evil purposes such as misuse of an atomic bomb. Unless and until human nature is fundamentally transformed, that will never change.
So, what is the answer in a country such as the United States where people and companies have the freedom to develop A.I. for any lawful purpose and where some inevitably will do so for a military purpose of which you disapprove?
You are then left only with a political solution: use political means to gain control of the government and the military and apply the force of law to ban the military use of which you disapprove.
So this is either a personal act of futility by the Google employees or it is a case by which they cannot separate the personal from the political and thereby insist that their employer sacrifice particular economic opportunities to ensure that your personal actions do not support a political outcome of which you disapprove.
Even then, does this mean that your employer should cease working on A.I. altogether? For, just as cash is fungible, so too is technology. Every improvement you make in A.I. might have an immediate use of x for your employer but, as humans collectively do this for all sorts of improvements, the results are there for the taking in the future for military applications of all kinds. In other words, you cannot put your improvement in a box or control it so as to limit its future uses (at least not in a free society). The computing technology of recent decades undoubtedly has bettered many aspects of life but it has also greatly magnified the lethality and utility of military applications so as to make the world far less safe. And this was inevitable unless a supervening agency were to have used forcible and totalitarian means to suppress such technological development from inception. Since no such supervening agency existed or even can exist in a free society, does this mean that all engineers and technical developers have blood on their hands because, ultimately, things they have done were used for applications of which they disapproved? Of course it does not. Nor would people today working on A.I. be held morally or legally responsible for ultimate downstream uses made of their work of which they would not morally approve today.
But this brings us back full circle. In the long run, you cannot stop such uses (or misuses) made from your technical development work. Nor can you be held responsible for them even though you contributed to them in some remote degree through your work efforts. Why then should it make a difference if your direct work efforts for a company like Google are applied to a military application of which you do not approve but which is legal, politically approved by the governing authorities, and will happen anyway regardless of whether Google is involved?
The puritans of old tried controlling the morality of others by shunning and shaming and doing it to an extreme degree. They failed miserably in their efforts because humanity is what it is and followed its own course without regard to external religious constraints.
This sort of effort by Google employees is obviously different in that it is not religiously driven but does it amount to anything more than a shunning-and-shaming method for trying to impose one's sense of morality on others by signaling that this way lies righteousness and everywhere else lies evil?
If this is what "don't be evil" now means, then Google will need lots of help going forward because every cause under the sun can be used in the same way to shun and shame. We then have management by a corporate board as may be swayed to and fro by any organized protest of the moment.
Whatever this is, and however it might be defensible in "sending a message" or whatever, it is a sure way to put a company at a competitive disadvantage while accomplishing nothing practically. It may further political goals but, if those are the goals, better just to try to advance them directly and not by attempting to shun and shame your employer (and your co-workers who may disagree with you) into submission. The personal need not be political. If it does become that way, a new form of puritanism will hold full sway to the detriment of all.
This argument is not only extremely lazy but positively representative of that large quagmire of social and communicative zeitgeist that Alan Kay calls "the bell curve of normality".
"It's hard to define things, so why bother at all?" ... "Attempting to circumscribe the affects of your work is difficult, so why have a moral stance at all?" ... dancing through loaded assumptions like "duly elected" and "democracy", finally concluding with a tired crescendo of capitalist "competitive disadvantage".
I would merely counter: if we are the future, then we can't all be lazy sods, especially those of us empowering the greatest systems, information and power structures on the planet. Give a damn, it's your moral duty. Intelligent people recognize this.
"It's hard to define things, so why bother at all?" ... "Attempting to circumscribe the affects of your work is difficult, so why have a moral stance at all?" ... dancing through loaded assumptions like "duly elected" and "democracy", finally concluding with a tired crescendo of capitalist "competitive disadvantage".
I would merely counter: if we are the future, then we can't all be lazy sods, especially those of us empowering the greatest systems, information and power structures on the planet. Give a damn, it's your moral duty. Intelligent people recognize this.
> In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and applications.
This is a false history. In the 1960s the U.S. was full of young people questioning whether they should just do as they were told and be a good, dutiful employee.
Since then there has been a massive campaign to roll back what was called “Vietnam syndrome” — the idea that you should consider the morality of your actions and contributions to society, not mere legality. Hence all the passionate Hollywood WWII dramatizations, the Greatest Generation, etc., portraying war as a tough but noble effort in which we must all unquestioningly sacrifice for the greater good — de-emphasizing much of the horrendous atrocities that have been perpetrated by the U.S. military in Vietnam, Iraq, support for murderous dictatorships in Central America, Indonesia, and so on.
Noam Chomsky has written extensively on this. One essay in particular is called The Backroom Boys — a reference to the chemical engineers at Dow who developed napalm within the relative peace and equanimity of a laboratory.
> Whatever this is, and however it might be defensible in "sending a message" or whatever, it is a sure way to put a company at a competitive disadvantage while accomplishing nothing practically… If it does become that way, a new form of puritanism will hold full sway to the detriment of all.
Whatever your opinion of the anti-war activists of the 1960s, puritans they were not.
This is a false history. In the 1960s the U.S. was full of young people questioning whether they should just do as they were told and be a good, dutiful employee.
Since then there has been a massive campaign to roll back what was called “Vietnam syndrome” — the idea that you should consider the morality of your actions and contributions to society, not mere legality. Hence all the passionate Hollywood WWII dramatizations, the Greatest Generation, etc., portraying war as a tough but noble effort in which we must all unquestioningly sacrifice for the greater good — de-emphasizing much of the horrendous atrocities that have been perpetrated by the U.S. military in Vietnam, Iraq, support for murderous dictatorships in Central America, Indonesia, and so on.
Noam Chomsky has written extensively on this. One essay in particular is called The Backroom Boys — a reference to the chemical engineers at Dow who developed napalm within the relative peace and equanimity of a laboratory.
> Whatever this is, and however it might be defensible in "sending a message" or whatever, it is a sure way to put a company at a competitive disadvantage while accomplishing nothing practically… If it does become that way, a new form of puritanism will hold full sway to the detriment of all.
Whatever your opinion of the anti-war activists of the 1960s, puritans they were not.
>there has been a massive campaign to roll back what was called “Vietnam syndrome” — the idea that you should consider the morality of your actions and contributions to society, not mere legality.
Is that what is typically meant by "Vietnam syndrome"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Syndrome
Also, isn't it a stretch to say Hollywood movies about WWII propagandize the idea one should only consider the legality of one's actions rather than the morality? If anything I would think most films attempt (in a sappy and trite way) to defend the rightness of the Allied cause.
Is that what is typically meant by "Vietnam syndrome"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Syndrome
Also, isn't it a stretch to say Hollywood movies about WWII propagandize the idea one should only consider the legality of one's actions rather than the morality? If anything I would think most films attempt (in a sappy and trite way) to defend the rightness of the Allied cause.
Didn't say that. WWII was a case where legality and morality overlap more conveniently which is why it is a favored topic. Still debatable in many aspects e.g. Nagasaki, firebombing cities, not bombing the concentration camps, etc., but in comparison to say Vietnam, you see the point. You don't see too many films these days celebrating the nobility of unquestioningly doing one's duty to support the righteous fight in Vietnam.
Ok, I understand a little better now. I still think this "legality" line of argument is a bit of a red herring and I'm not sure where the poster you responded to got his ideas about how things were "in earlier days" and what "was always the standard."
I think it's probably fair to say that Vietnam was an eye-opener that shook a lot of people's trust in the wisdom of our society's leadership in general. And that a segment of society nevertheless responded like Kissinger by doubling down and shaming the doubters.
I think it's probably fair to say that Vietnam was an eye-opener that shook a lot of people's trust in the wisdom of our society's leadership in general. And that a segment of society nevertheless responded like Kissinger by doubling down and shaming the doubters.
Your discussion of "legality" here is U.S.-centric. Google has offices in Germany, France, Poland, Russia, Turkey, U.A.E., India, and China, to name a few. How would you feel if Google worked on military technology for those countries? Would you point out that it was inevitable that their militaries would seek ways to use A.I.? Would you point out that the Turkish armed forces' activities are permitted under Turkish law? Would you lament the inability of Google employees to separate work from politics?
Google has users in almost all countries, and even our friends in other liberal democracies do not see the U.S. military the same way we do. Perhaps some Google users' family members have even been killed by the U.S. military. This presents a perfectly reasonable business reason (one that has nothing to do with "the personal, the moral, the legal, and the political") for Google to turn down AI drone contracts.
Google has users in almost all countries, and even our friends in other liberal democracies do not see the U.S. military the same way we do. Perhaps some Google users' family members have even been killed by the U.S. military. This presents a perfectly reasonable business reason (one that has nothing to do with "the personal, the moral, the legal, and the political") for Google to turn down AI drone contracts.
I am from one of the country you listed above and it seems perfectly fine to me that Google comply with existing laws of respective countries even if they are in contradiction to US laws.
FWIW, I am American, and I would absolutely object if Google were building weapons for the Chinese military. I would stop using Microsoft products if it turned out they supplied weapons for the Russian takeover of Crimea. I would delete my Twitter account if they were found to be building special-purpose propaganda tools to aid Turkey's Erdogan. Etc.
Complying with laws in another country is one thing. Working with a military, which necessarily has implications beyond that country's borders, is another. And of course even here there are different degrees. You can build a general-purpose secure email client and sell it to a country's military, or you can design their bombs. Where the line is I'm not sure, but at some point your activity is inherently violent, inherently adversarial to some fraction of people in the world.
Complying with laws in another country is one thing. Working with a military, which necessarily has implications beyond that country's borders, is another. And of course even here there are different degrees. You can build a general-purpose secure email client and sell it to a country's military, or you can design their bombs. Where the line is I'm not sure, but at some point your activity is inherently violent, inherently adversarial to some fraction of people in the world.
I am more conflicted about at least one person I knew committed suicide because IT automation provided by Google eliminated his job. Or in general IT/industrial automation wreaking havoc on my highly populated but poor nation. Now is it just the price of progress as people here would say or should Google employees be held morally responsible for causing destruction of livelihood for many a people.
I bet neither China, nor Russia, nor the US would allow foreign citizens in foreign countries develop any serious military technology for their armies. Even their own citizens would be checked in detail before being allowed to work on it.
If a technology is not under that kind of scrutiny, chances are its military applications are... far-fetched.
If a technology is not under that kind of scrutiny, chances are its military applications are... far-fetched.
Lots of military technology is traded between countries all the time, tanks, planes, guns, boats, missiles, etc. China just bought a bunch of Su35 jet fighters from Russia.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-air-force-m...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-air-force-m...
We used to have a moral military, we championed the banning of weapons such as gas, bio, nuclear, mines, etc and we established international institutions and protocols to stop their spread. At some point we turned evil and have been destroying the foundations of international cooperation that we built and are building and spreading new categories of weapons without concern or moral debate. We are the bad guys now.
We are starting to see the shape of the AI driven future and it is not pretty. Autonomous drones and other robots and surveillance patrolling systems establishing strict inescapable authoritarian control.
The elite employees at the global AI leader are best suited to see the coming dangers and are sounding the alarm bells. The outlook is bleak but moral engineers are going to be one line of defense in this fight. And I hope they keep doing it.
We are starting to see the shape of the AI driven future and it is not pretty. Autonomous drones and other robots and surveillance patrolling systems establishing strict inescapable authoritarian control.
The elite employees at the global AI leader are best suited to see the coming dangers and are sounding the alarm bells. The outlook is bleak but moral engineers are going to be one line of defense in this fight. And I hope they keep doing it.
The US has never signed the Ottawa treaty, banning the use of land mines. The US do however claim to abide by it, outside of the Korean peninsula. The US never signed the treaty on cluster munitions either, which have many of the same humanitarian issues that mines possess.
>if I help develop A.I. that can be used for all sorts of things, one of which happens to be military-related, is the effort "evil"
There's a famous quote for this:
It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Borenstein
Of which I believe the meaning is yes, it's evil. It's handing a toddler a loaded gun sort of evil. If you DestroyBaghdad, you've limited the harm your program can do to what is specifically required by the situation. DestroyCity is easily misused in the wrong hands and should be carefully considered by ethical programmers.
Doctors solve this by disallowing unethical members of their profession to legally practice. Programmers should consider becoming an ethical profession, because depending on others in the field to do the right thing and police themselves hasn't been working out.
There's a famous quote for this:
It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Borenstein
Of which I believe the meaning is yes, it's evil. It's handing a toddler a loaded gun sort of evil. If you DestroyBaghdad, you've limited the harm your program can do to what is specifically required by the situation. DestroyCity is easily misused in the wrong hands and should be carefully considered by ethical programmers.
Doctors solve this by disallowing unethical members of their profession to legally practice. Programmers should consider becoming an ethical profession, because depending on others in the field to do the right thing and police themselves hasn't been working out.
It's relatively easy to prevent the unlicensed practice of medicine. But anyone can buy a computer and start programming. There's no practical way to require that all programmers adhere to a code of professional ethics.
I completely agree with the loaded-gun metaphor, but doctors are a very different kettle of fish.
Doctors are healers. The Hippocratic oath - "do no harm" - is the logical conclusion of the practice of medicine. Medicine heals, which is the opposite of causing harm. Avoiding harm is the only consistent metric of success, which explains the oath's persistence for millennia.
Can you think of a consistent, concrete set of ethics that would draw unanimous support among programmers?
Doctors are healers. The Hippocratic oath - "do no harm" - is the logical conclusion of the practice of medicine. Medicine heals, which is the opposite of causing harm. Avoiding harm is the only consistent metric of success, which explains the oath's persistence for millennia.
Can you think of a consistent, concrete set of ethics that would draw unanimous support among programmers?
I think healing has less to do with it than liability. Snake oil salesmen used to be a thing.
What currently sets programmers apart is the lack of liability. Programmers write their own get out of jail free cards. We call them EULAs.
If a doctor screws up and leaves a clamp inside you after surgery, he is sued. If a programmer screws up and leaves a debugging backdoor in a shipped product, nothing.
>Can you think of a consistent, concrete set of ethics that would draw unanimous support among programmers?
I think if programmers can't come to a consensus on that answer, then legislators will do it for them.
If you look around, we're actually witnessing this happening right now. Populist anger has erupted after Equifax, Cambridge Analytica, and Uber. NYT opinion pieces call for changes in liability law around programming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/opinion/equifax-accountab...
And it's not just talk. Changes have already started. Section 230 was recently modified to make small changes in liability of web hosts. In response, Craigslist went full nuclear option in protest and dropped their Personals section. Almost nobody noticed, which means in the next round, law makers will be much more bold in applying more liability to the businesses of programmers.
Google's "Do no evil" was the closest thing I think we've witnessed to a Hippocratic oath for programmers. That's long gone now. Now it's all jerk tech, exploit your users for content and then demonetize them with no recourse or redress.
I don't think the west can get any wilder, so the pendulum is going to go against us from here on out. Programmers should be getting ahead of this, but like all dumb humans, we will sit stupidly. We will only react to immediately obvious consequences instead of preparing for the storm on the horizon.
What currently sets programmers apart is the lack of liability. Programmers write their own get out of jail free cards. We call them EULAs.
If a doctor screws up and leaves a clamp inside you after surgery, he is sued. If a programmer screws up and leaves a debugging backdoor in a shipped product, nothing.
>Can you think of a consistent, concrete set of ethics that would draw unanimous support among programmers?
I think if programmers can't come to a consensus on that answer, then legislators will do it for them.
If you look around, we're actually witnessing this happening right now. Populist anger has erupted after Equifax, Cambridge Analytica, and Uber. NYT opinion pieces call for changes in liability law around programming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/opinion/equifax-accountab...
And it's not just talk. Changes have already started. Section 230 was recently modified to make small changes in liability of web hosts. In response, Craigslist went full nuclear option in protest and dropped their Personals section. Almost nobody noticed, which means in the next round, law makers will be much more bold in applying more liability to the businesses of programmers.
Google's "Do no evil" was the closest thing I think we've witnessed to a Hippocratic oath for programmers. That's long gone now. Now it's all jerk tech, exploit your users for content and then demonetize them with no recourse or redress.
I don't think the west can get any wilder, so the pendulum is going to go against us from here on out. Programmers should be getting ahead of this, but like all dumb humans, we will sit stupidly. We will only react to immediately obvious consequences instead of preparing for the storm on the horizon.
There's a lot to unpack here, but it seems that the gist of it is that things that happen in our society are because humanity is some kind of untamable animal, and that we should all just resign to letting it run wild as it does.
Do you not believe that society is only the sum of its parts? Do you not believe that the mathematics of society can be changed, the more parts of the equation object to letting their talents be used for unscrupulous goals?
I would point you towards any cultural shift in modern society, and how it began—usually, as the imbalance of classes further divides, until one class can't tolerate it any further, and uses what power they have to reset the scales. That is what is happening today, and it isn't a fluke of the short attention span of the beast of humanity. It is a conscious, concerted effort of people in this country who are tired of existing in a system devoid of morals. And to frame it as something like embracing the status quo, or becoming a puritanical society, is simply a false dichotomy.
Do you not believe that society is only the sum of its parts? Do you not believe that the mathematics of society can be changed, the more parts of the equation object to letting their talents be used for unscrupulous goals?
I would point you towards any cultural shift in modern society, and how it began—usually, as the imbalance of classes further divides, until one class can't tolerate it any further, and uses what power they have to reset the scales. That is what is happening today, and it isn't a fluke of the short attention span of the beast of humanity. It is a conscious, concerted effort of people in this country who are tired of existing in a system devoid of morals. And to frame it as something like embracing the status quo, or becoming a puritanical society, is simply a false dichotomy.
In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and applications.
You might want to read some history. E.g. history of the development of nuclear weapons.
You might want to read some history. E.g. history of the development of nuclear weapons.
>In other words, doing your job is personal and, as long as you do it honestly and work hard, you should not be faulted for doing it as requested by your employer.
This sounds remarkibly similar to the "superior orders" defense given at Nuremberg [1]
(Those who gave it were hung from the neck until dead.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
This sounds remarkibly similar to the "superior orders" defense given at Nuremberg [1]
(Those who gave it were hung from the neck until dead.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
I really appreciate your thoughtful comment!
But I also wonder, if your employer asked you to provide some legal cover for something you found unconscionable -- like maybe draw up incorporation documents for organizing sex tourism to a place where it's both legal and likely to involve slavery -- would you subscribe to the same argument about how you should just do your job and not ask questions, how someone else will do it if you don't, and dutifully provide the legal services?
And if you think that hypothetical scenario is meaningfully different from this one, could you describe how? (I don't mean to try to back you into a rhetorical corner -- I'm genuinely interested in your response.)
But I also wonder, if your employer asked you to provide some legal cover for something you found unconscionable -- like maybe draw up incorporation documents for organizing sex tourism to a place where it's both legal and likely to involve slavery -- would you subscribe to the same argument about how you should just do your job and not ask questions, how someone else will do it if you don't, and dutifully provide the legal services?
And if you think that hypothetical scenario is meaningfully different from this one, could you describe how? (I don't mean to try to back you into a rhetorical corner -- I'm genuinely interested in your response.)
> The military application in question is legal and is approved by a duly elected government that supports it politically. In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and applications. In other words, doing your job is personal and, as long as you do it honestly and work hard, you should not be faulted for doing it as requested by your employer.
This is basically the "just following orders" defense. Your argument rationalizes doing nothing.
As a moral person I think you basically have two choices: either don't work on things you think can be used for evil or if you do work on those things step up and make sure they are used responsibly.
This is basically the "just following orders" defense. Your argument rationalizes doing nothing.
As a moral person I think you basically have two choices: either don't work on things you think can be used for evil or if you do work on those things step up and make sure they are used responsibly.
It can be seen as a message (as you say) to a wider populace that this is all getting in a wrong direction. If government is hiding from its own populace what its doing with drones, who should raise this issue? Why not people working on the drone program (regardless of where exactly). It's much easier for newcommers than incumbents I'd say, so it make sense some Google employees would be ones to protest.
You never know what will be the initial trigger for change, who will be inspired or whatever. Take this guy: http://www.ecns.cn/2018/01-02/286632.shtml Why should some basketball celebrity and his campaign have so much effect?
You never know what will be the initial trigger for change, who will be inspired or whatever. Take this guy: http://www.ecns.cn/2018/01-02/286632.shtml Why should some basketball celebrity and his campaign have so much effect?
Don't forget that Google is a multinational corporation, whereas there is no multinational government with political control by the people.
Google supporting American military may have negative effects on Google the corporation, especially considering that the rest of the world is a bigger economy than the US.
Google supporting American military may have negative effects on Google the corporation, especially considering that the rest of the world is a bigger economy than the US.
> Don't forget that Google is a multinational corporation
Google (and it's parent, Alphabet) is a US corporation, predominantly controlled by a pair of American individuals, with overseas operations and subsidiaries.
It's “multinational” in much the same way that the CIA is.
Google (and it's parent, Alphabet) is a US corporation, predominantly controlled by a pair of American individuals, with overseas operations and subsidiaries.
It's “multinational” in much the same way that the CIA is.
[deleted]
There are still people living who, in the middle of the last century condemned other people to death for only doing their jobs. Of course, a future AI may decide to simulate our reality and torture you for a subjective eternity if you do not do everything in your power in this reality to bring that AI into existence. You plays your cards and you takes your chances, but in general its simpler if you try to do what you honestly believe is morally right. And if you honestly believe that the right thing to do is pummel our society with shitty advertising then please do your very best.
Thank god, some sense! It was driving me crazy with how many irrational positions that people in this thread are holding without considering their orientation to the product (AI) and their relationship to the employer.
Something I would add is that a lot of people don't understand how fundamental military R&D is to the collective progression of knowledge and technology. Take almost any common technology that we use today (computers, gps, rockets, airplanes, cell phones, radios, the internet, etc) and you will find it came from military R&D and use in war.
Since AI and all its related parts are the new technological hotness, to put it mildly, it only makes sense that Google, one of the companies on the forefront of this technology, would work with the government/military to do research and find ways to apply it with their scope.
Something I would add is that a lot of people don't understand how fundamental military R&D is to the collective progression of knowledge and technology. Take almost any common technology that we use today (computers, gps, rockets, airplanes, cell phones, radios, the internet, etc) and you will find it came from military R&D and use in war.
Since AI and all its related parts are the new technological hotness, to put it mildly, it only makes sense that Google, one of the companies on the forefront of this technology, would work with the government/military to do research and find ways to apply it with their scope.
Part of the reason so much stuff comes out of military research is simply that the military has such a huge budget it can spend it on R&D.
There are definitely useful dual use technologies. But there's also a lot of military research that is almost strictly for military. Nuclear weapons research goes beyond the stuff needed for power generation, for example. Money that could have went into research in more stable, safer power generation instead went into how to make nukes small enough to be used by infantry on the battlefield
The military helps a lot by being a huge customer for a lot of this tech, but we can also cut out the middle man and just spend on r&d directly in some cases!
By discussing the morality of weapons research in a world where we already have civilization-ending technology ,we can maybe reorient ourselves to spending directly on progress in more cases. Without needing to have a military application to justify it.
This happened in the past with the neutron bomb, perhaps it can happen again with tech that could be used to help solidify a police state
There are definitely useful dual use technologies. But there's also a lot of military research that is almost strictly for military. Nuclear weapons research goes beyond the stuff needed for power generation, for example. Money that could have went into research in more stable, safer power generation instead went into how to make nukes small enough to be used by infantry on the battlefield
The military helps a lot by being a huge customer for a lot of this tech, but we can also cut out the middle man and just spend on r&d directly in some cases!
By discussing the morality of weapons research in a world where we already have civilization-ending technology ,we can maybe reorient ourselves to spending directly on progress in more cases. Without needing to have a military application to justify it.
This happened in the past with the neutron bomb, perhaps it can happen again with tech that could be used to help solidify a police state
There is no logical connective in your implied argument. Just because A is trying to buy from B does not mean that B should sell things to A, even if A's spending would increase the quality of B's product.
Since we live in a market driven economy, the government (A) will always find a way to buy what they want. So if Google (B) doesn't supply the demand, the customer will just go somewhere else. So it is completely illogical for Goolge to move away. They are an extremely powerful business and are subject to the rules of business.
This may be an uncomfortable fact but people have surprisingly short memories: the military funded the majority of the early advances in systems, networking, and cryptography (and especially as a large part of the latter subject area, invested heavily in fundamental, theoretical research). Not saying that I disagree with the employees' opinion, just that DoD/Pentagon involvement in artificial intelligence research shouldn't be viewed as a necessarily bad thing. Many other major powers have heavily invested in AI across all fronts (including military applications), and it would be stupid for the US to not have one of its' largest strategic assets to not be part of the process.
My memory isn't short.
You made a point of talking about cryptography. The US government also classified crypto as munitions in order to control its usage and export: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
This had very negative effects on cryptography in general (see the FREAK exploit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREAK )
Also, why wouldn't this be employed to better monitor Stingray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker) systems?
I don't think the government (and specifically, the military) should be viewed as a non-partisan actor when it comes to technology.
You made a point of talking about cryptography. The US government also classified crypto as munitions in order to control its usage and export: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
This had very negative effects on cryptography in general (see the FREAK exploit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREAK )
Also, why wouldn't this be employed to better monitor Stingray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker) systems?
I don't think the government (and specifically, the military) should be viewed as a non-partisan actor when it comes to technology.
The classification of cryptography as munitions was an interesting choice. The first amendment may protect domestic encryption capabilities as stated by the wikipedia article. From a legal standpoint, does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? As information becomes weaponized, it's an interesting thought. The first amendment is arguably more vulnerable these days, so I wonder if perhaps a second amendment argument could be made in support of domestic encryption. It certainly would help with marketing the argument to a certain segment of the population.
IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.
It depends how you look at it. What was the purpose. Presumably after fighting in the Revolutionary War the goal was not to give people hunting privileges, they had something else in mind. From that point of view, maybe RPGs should be allowed, but so should attack helicopters, surveillance capabilities, private spy satellites, etc.
> IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.
Surprisingly perhaps you can buy a military grade flamethrower complete with a napalm package: https://throwflame.com/ it's not even classified as a firearm, and is illegal in only two states I think.
> IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.
Surprisingly perhaps you can buy a military grade flamethrower complete with a napalm package: https://throwflame.com/ it's not even classified as a firearm, and is illegal in only two states I think.
This has always been my way of looking at the 2A. It's clearly intended to give citizens the rights and tools to fight wars, otherwise it wouldn't mention it along with militias. Thus, it does seem logical that it extends to armaments of war, such as knives, firearms, artillery, bombs, etc (perhaps even hacking tools).
I'm a gun owner myself, and I've (long ago) taken the stance that the 2A isn't really compatible with modern life, as the people who originally wrote it could not have anticipated the weapons militaries deploy today. It makes sense in my mind that it is Congress' responsibility to regulate what it reasonable weapons for civilized society.
I'm a gun owner myself, and I've (long ago) taken the stance that the 2A isn't really compatible with modern life, as the people who originally wrote it could not have anticipated the weapons militaries deploy today. It makes sense in my mind that it is Congress' responsibility to regulate what it reasonable weapons for civilized society.
Congress does regulate those weapons.
There's a reason you can't just walk into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a machine gun, or a rocket launcher.
That said, I don't much care for the fact that the requirement to have legal access to machine guns is "be rich enough to buy your way around the law".
Personally, I do think we need a complete re-work of the way we treat weapons to reflect the realities of the modern world.
(1) We have four hundred million weapons in the United States. It is horribly negligent that safe weapon handling is not taught in schools, at multiple levels. Also a good touchpoint to get police interacting positively with the community.
(2) The current background check system should be replaced with a Swiss-style one; e.g., you get a code, valid for say a week or two, that any seller can use to verify that you have passed a background check.
This doesn't create a de-facto registry, so no problem getting gun owners (or the NRA) to go for this one.
(4) A red-flag law that allows immediate family members and healthcare professionals to temporarily bar an individual from purchasing weapons, with safeguards in-place to keep bad actors from abusing the system (e.g., a psychiatrist that just reports all of his patients to the system because he opposes gun ownership).
(5) Removing gun rights only in the case of violent crime. Right now, in most states, misdemeanor assault won't cost you your gun rights, but a felony for tax evasion will. That's ass-backwards.
(6) Machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, and the like should be available with a license. You really need to be able to show that you can handle these things safely. Right now, it's just "be rich".
(7) Treat short-barreled rifles and shotguns as normal firearms, and silencers like any other accessory.
(8) Concealed-carry should be the same for police as it is for normal citizens. Same licensing requirements: a one-day course, including a test on safe weapon handling. This also ends gun-free zones: if you have a license, you can carry wherever you want.
(9) Open carry needs to work differently for urban and rural areas. The above permit will allow you to open-carry a pistol in an urban area. Rifles, no. Put it in a case. In the countryside, open carry just makes sense.
(10) Actually prosecute straw sellers. Buy a gun for somebody that can't legally buy one on their own, you permanently lose your gun rights, plus whatever punishment makes sense.
(11) Secure storage requirements. If one of your weapons is stolen and used for a crime, you are legally an accessory if you can not demonstrate that you took reasonable measures to store the weapon securely (e.g., a gun safe or lockable case). This doesn't require police inspections, but provides a strong incentive for personal responsibility.
All of this would enjoy massive support from gun owners, and address a lot of existing problems.
There's a reason you can't just walk into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a machine gun, or a rocket launcher.
That said, I don't much care for the fact that the requirement to have legal access to machine guns is "be rich enough to buy your way around the law".
Personally, I do think we need a complete re-work of the way we treat weapons to reflect the realities of the modern world.
(1) We have four hundred million weapons in the United States. It is horribly negligent that safe weapon handling is not taught in schools, at multiple levels. Also a good touchpoint to get police interacting positively with the community.
(2) The current background check system should be replaced with a Swiss-style one; e.g., you get a code, valid for say a week or two, that any seller can use to verify that you have passed a background check.
This doesn't create a de-facto registry, so no problem getting gun owners (or the NRA) to go for this one.
(4) A red-flag law that allows immediate family members and healthcare professionals to temporarily bar an individual from purchasing weapons, with safeguards in-place to keep bad actors from abusing the system (e.g., a psychiatrist that just reports all of his patients to the system because he opposes gun ownership).
(5) Removing gun rights only in the case of violent crime. Right now, in most states, misdemeanor assault won't cost you your gun rights, but a felony for tax evasion will. That's ass-backwards.
(6) Machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, and the like should be available with a license. You really need to be able to show that you can handle these things safely. Right now, it's just "be rich".
(7) Treat short-barreled rifles and shotguns as normal firearms, and silencers like any other accessory.
(8) Concealed-carry should be the same for police as it is for normal citizens. Same licensing requirements: a one-day course, including a test on safe weapon handling. This also ends gun-free zones: if you have a license, you can carry wherever you want.
(9) Open carry needs to work differently for urban and rural areas. The above permit will allow you to open-carry a pistol in an urban area. Rifles, no. Put it in a case. In the countryside, open carry just makes sense.
(10) Actually prosecute straw sellers. Buy a gun for somebody that can't legally buy one on their own, you permanently lose your gun rights, plus whatever punishment makes sense.
(11) Secure storage requirements. If one of your weapons is stolen and used for a crime, you are legally an accessory if you can not demonstrate that you took reasonable measures to store the weapon securely (e.g., a gun safe or lockable case). This doesn't require police inspections, but provides a strong incentive for personal responsibility.
All of this would enjoy massive support from gun owners, and address a lot of existing problems.
Seriously. Congress should just concentrate on this list. Just put language around this, and I think they'd have a very reasonable set of gun laws.
These all seem well thought out and reasonable. Thanks for sharing
That flamethrower is awesome. What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?
Clearing brush. It's considered an agricultural tool IIRC.
Also for preburning (ahead of forest fires) IIRC.
Are you saying that literally fighting fire with fire is a thing?
I may have missed my calling . . . .
I may have missed my calling . . . .
> What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?
It can be more effective at clearing bunkers and closed rooms? The military were using these in WWII for trenches, bunkers, clearing brush. My friend's grandpa in US was operating one in the Pacific during WWII.
I just brought it was an example how something potentially more deadly than guns or RPGs is not much regulated and how laws are not very rational sometimes.
It can be more effective at clearing bunkers and closed rooms? The military were using these in WWII for trenches, bunkers, clearing brush. My friend's grandpa in US was operating one in the Pacific during WWII.
I just brought it was an example how something potentially more deadly than guns or RPGs is not much regulated and how laws are not very rational sometimes.
> It depends how you look at it.
I recently purchased the Federalist Papers so I could have a better understanding of "how" to read it, what the context was, and what types of discussions to anticipate having with those who'd like to look at it differently
I recently purchased the Federalist Papers so I could have a better understanding of "how" to read it, what the context was, and what types of discussions to anticipate having with those who'd like to look at it differently
And what have you learned for those of us who haven’t read the federalist papers?
Also, why do they need to be purchased? Isn’t that information in the public domain? Surely enough time has passed and Alexander Hamilton’s family don’t need to continue to profit from it?
Also, why do they need to be purchased? Isn’t that information in the public domain? Surely enough time has passed and Alexander Hamilton’s family don’t need to continue to profit from it?
They don't need to be purchased(http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1404). Some people still read physical books, though, which generally requires purchasing if they wish to keep the book.
Can’t speak for the parent, but I buy public domain books because it tends to be cheaper than the paper and toner required to print it. And it looks nicer.
IAANAL but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is actually really vague in terms of what it refers to, and has actually been tested in court less often than one might think.
How it's written I personally think you should be able to buy any weapon available on the open market. Or at least any weapon that could realistically be used by an infantryman (as the wording is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,."
I'd rather have a new amendment then have judges be able to decide what the definition of arms is. Slippery slope. They really could one day decide that 'arms' is only muskets, or even just knives.
I'd rather have a new amendment then have judges be able to decide what the definition of arms is. Slippery slope. They really could one day decide that 'arms' is only muskets, or even just knives.
Broadly speaking, that's been the holding of the courts since 1939.
U.S. v. Miller loosely established the test (later solidified in 2008's Heller v DC) that weapons commonly used in militia service are inherently deserving of second amendment protections.
Miller, a known mobster who was caught with a sawed off shotgun lost his case because
a) the military testified that they had never used sawed off shotguns, so they were not useful to a military, ergo a militia (which was a lie -- they had used them, and found them useful for trench-clearing)
b) Miller's attorney was not very good, and didn't even challenge that testimony, much less so by totally disproving it -- I offer a little sympathy here as they didn't have Google at the time
Also noteworthy, Miller was actually dead when the decision came down, as he'd been murdered, and because /shrug, the trial kept going, but the defense (for obvious reasons) quit trying. He was sentenced in absentia.
U.S. v. Miller loosely established the test (later solidified in 2008's Heller v DC) that weapons commonly used in militia service are inherently deserving of second amendment protections.
Miller, a known mobster who was caught with a sawed off shotgun lost his case because
a) the military testified that they had never used sawed off shotguns, so they were not useful to a military, ergo a militia (which was a lie -- they had used them, and found them useful for trench-clearing)
b) Miller's attorney was not very good, and didn't even challenge that testimony, much less so by totally disproving it -- I offer a little sympathy here as they didn't have Google at the time
Also noteworthy, Miller was actually dead when the decision came down, as he'd been murdered, and because /shrug, the trial kept going, but the defense (for obvious reasons) quit trying. He was sentenced in absentia.
You say solidified, but it was a 5-4 ruling. To determine if handguns could be banned by the city. And an 'arm' that has been used by infantry forces for generations.
Which I find just insane. People say no one wants to take Americans guns rights away, but we were literally one vote from effectively doing so.
Which I find just insane. People say no one wants to take Americans guns rights away, but we were literally one vote from effectively doing so.
Whenever someone says "no one wants to take your guns away", now you can just point them at this and see whether they maintain that position:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assa...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assa...
Except you can own an RPG in the US... It's an NFA classified destructive device. You can also own cannons, tanks, or attack helicopters if you have the money.
Isn't the 2a just a "well armed malitia"? Maybe an RPG is more than well armed, but encryption?
"well-regulated militia," but it's pretty much an open question how much that actually has to do with the right described in the second clause. Gun rights activists tend to down-play that first bit, as it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with unlimited individual gun ownership rights.
My state constitution clarifies it as "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state..."
Your state constitution doesn't particularly get a say in what the US constitution means (so says the 10th amendment).
That's not necessarily true. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from "infringing" on your right to bear arms, and not the states.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
> The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from "infringing" on your right to bear arms, and not the states.
This was true only between 2008 and 2010. In 2010, the Supreme Court clarified that it was incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment.
This was true only between 2008 and 2010. In 2010, the Supreme Court clarified that it was incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment.
How is it then that different states infringe on the right to bear arms to different degrees?
And it was indeed the case well before 2008-2010. See United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894).
And it was indeed the case well before 2008-2010. See United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894).
See DC vs Heller, 2008.
Does it really say ‘himself’?
Yes, it likely does. With English lacking a gender-neutral pronoun, "he" or "him" or "his" historically did not necessarily imply the male sex, depending on context. As "man" can refer to all of humankind, again it's a matter of context.
Yet the actual second amendment seems to avoid the problem as far as I can see.
Edit: And of all the second amendment issues that could be argued, I somehow picked this one.
I wish this was the only surprising bit in the constitution of Alabama. The section outlawing interracial marriage was only removed in 2000, and it still contains a section mandating segregated public schools.
[deleted]
> "it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible"
so says you. it's not clear to me at all that militia members don't support collective action
so says you. it's not clear to me at all that militia members don't support collective action
The militia in that sentence IS the collective action. How many gun owners are part of a well-regulated militia?
Even the NRA removed references to that first clause from their material.
Even the NRA removed references to that first clause from their material.
To be fair, militias of the day weren't generally standing militias, and needed to be mustered.
We do have definitions as to what militias are informed to us by writings of the founders, the federalist papers, previous drafts of the second amendment and, failing that, codified by law in 10 US Code § 311. The definition of militia there ("consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard") will likely have been expanded by our recent advances in military equality.
We do have definitions as to what militias are informed to us by writings of the founders, the federalist papers, previous drafts of the second amendment and, failing that, codified by law in 10 US Code § 311. The definition of militia there ("consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard") will likely have been expanded by our recent advances in military equality.
Some context into the mindset and beliefs of the people who penned the original amendment is helpful in this case, but you find very little in support of the level of control that the anti-2A people want.
Gun rights antagonists tend to downplay that bit, as it implies an individual perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with tightly-controlled gun ownership permissions.
Gun rights antagonists tend to downplay that bit, as it implies an individual perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with tightly-controlled gun ownership permissions.
They also downplay that in every case of a gun being used in some criminal way, numerous laws and regulations are already being broken. So what difference will more regulations make? The only thing that could possibly give the gun-control people what they really want is total confiscation of all guns, and even if that were somehow possible there would be a civil war over that if it were to be seriously attempted.
> The only thing that could possibly give the gun-control people what they really want is total confiscation of all guns
Strawmen are so unhelpful in reasonable debate.
Not all gun control advocates are either anti-second amendment, nor in favor of eliminating all guns. To say otherwise, creating a false black/white dichotomy in the gun debate, does a massive disservice to both gun advocates and gun control proponents.
Ironically, by making the choice "all guns" or "no guns", gun advocates themselves are forcing the "no guns" option to the center of the debate. As a wave of frustrated anti-gun youth become voters and reasonable political moderates look at options to "protect the children", I really think it's in gun proponents' best interests to provide a better alternative than "do nothing" on one side and "civil war" on the other.
Strawmen are so unhelpful in reasonable debate.
Not all gun control advocates are either anti-second amendment, nor in favor of eliminating all guns. To say otherwise, creating a false black/white dichotomy in the gun debate, does a massive disservice to both gun advocates and gun control proponents.
Ironically, by making the choice "all guns" or "no guns", gun advocates themselves are forcing the "no guns" option to the center of the debate. As a wave of frustrated anti-gun youth become voters and reasonable political moderates look at options to "protect the children", I really think it's in gun proponents' best interests to provide a better alternative than "do nothing" on one side and "civil war" on the other.
It ceases to be a strawman when it's on a sign held by protestors acting in good faith[1].
At the end of the day, these stances, even the "moderate" ones you mention, are irreconcilable all the way down to first principles. If you are for gun control, you are necessarily for measures that will restrict the right to bear arms as it is recognized today, some more, some less, but restrictions on the right all the same.
There's no real evading that.
[1] https://pics.me.me/yes-i-do-want-to-take-away-youur-guns-you...
At the end of the day, these stances, even the "moderate" ones you mention, are irreconcilable all the way down to first principles. If you are for gun control, you are necessarily for measures that will restrict the right to bear arms as it is recognized today, some more, some less, but restrictions on the right all the same.
There's no real evading that.
[1] https://pics.me.me/yes-i-do-want-to-take-away-youur-guns-you...
Of course some gun control advocates want a "we've come to collect your guns" law. I never said that no one holds extreme positions.
But that does not mean that everyone holds extreme positions, which is what you claimed.
Arguing that the extremes are the only options is a problem.
How productive would health debates be if the only two options presented were veganism and paleo? If the only sex ed options are abstinence or polyamory?
There must be room for compromise, or there is no debate, only argumentation.
But that does not mean that everyone holds extreme positions, which is what you claimed.
Arguing that the extremes are the only options is a problem.
How productive would health debates be if the only two options presented were veganism and paleo? If the only sex ed options are abstinence or polyamory?
There must be room for compromise, or there is no debate, only argumentation.
The problem is that the "compromise" touted by gun control advocates is entirely one-sided - more restrictions, no concessions. No quid-pro-quo, only further restrictions on the right.
That's not compromise, that's capitulation.
That's not compromise, that's capitulation.
agar said that not all gun control advocates want to repeal the second amendment, not that there aren't any gun control advocates who want to repeal the second amendment.
There's a school of thought that the word "arms" in the Constitution might have referred mainly to sidearms, not to canons, catapults, warships, etc. The theory is that there were other words like "artillery" to describe larger weapons.
>"Justice Scalia also wrote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
[1] https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scal...
I think for a weapon to be 'compliant' with US's second amendment a couple of criteria must be met
a) must be in current wide use in military
b) must be capable of being carried by a single person (which is why tanks and fighter jets will not qualify) This follows form 'individual' focus of the bill of right.
c) must be capable to aim it at a single person (which is why explosive or RPGs would not qualify). This follows from the notion that Bill of Right in general, does not condone collateral damage or collateral effect. As this is Individual's right, and therefore presumes individual's responsibility.
I also find this linguistic analysis of what 'bear arms' meant in 1791s, interesting/educational [2] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255
[1] https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scal...
I think for a weapon to be 'compliant' with US's second amendment a couple of criteria must be met
a) must be in current wide use in military
b) must be capable of being carried by a single person (which is why tanks and fighter jets will not qualify) This follows form 'individual' focus of the bill of right.
c) must be capable to aim it at a single person (which is why explosive or RPGs would not qualify). This follows from the notion that Bill of Right in general, does not condone collateral damage or collateral effect. As this is Individual's right, and therefore presumes individual's responsibility.
I also find this linguistic analysis of what 'bear arms' meant in 1791s, interesting/educational [2] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255
This school only makes sense if you throw out the entire section that mentions a well regulated militia. A militia would be expected to have artillery.
The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to foreigners. Classifying encryption as a munition meant that I have never truthfully answered all the visa waiver questions on entering the US.
Fischer v Massachussetts[1] (and other cases won by the second amendment foundation) holds that resident aliens are counted amongst "the people" for purposes of second amendment protection (and other rights too!)
[1] - http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135...
[1] - http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135...
resident alien != foreigner
I believe GP was referring to times s/he's entered the US on a visitor visa of some sort.
I believe GP was referring to times s/he's entered the US on a visitor visa of some sort.
Then there may be a de facto restriction against the exercise of such a right by such a person, as one needs to have a permanent address to comply with the laws as they are currently interpreted.
It does. A permanent resident alien can purchase and carry firearms in most states, and nonresident aliens can get a license to do so as well.
does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory?
It doesn't much matter. Even if somebody made the case that "crypto is a form of 'Arms', subject to 2A protection," the 2A doesn't grant an unregulated right to own whatever "arms" one chooses. All the rights granted by the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation.
So, Congress could simply legislate a restriction on crypto, much as they have done with machine guns, grenades, and nukes.
It doesn't much matter. Even if somebody made the case that "crypto is a form of 'Arms', subject to 2A protection," the 2A doesn't grant an unregulated right to own whatever "arms" one chooses. All the rights granted by the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation.
So, Congress could simply legislate a restriction on crypto, much as they have done with machine guns, grenades, and nukes.
It could be argued that the 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure a means of the citizenry to overthrow the government (as an absolute check on an unjust government). Unfortunately it's now just a vestige of an older time and the 2nd amendment only serves to protect the rights of gun hobbyists.
The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military, and the modern arms such as encryption and freedom from surveillance are not even guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military, and the modern arms such as encryption and freedom from surveillance are not even guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
>The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military,
You're getting into spherical cow[1] territory if you think the US citizenry couldn't defeat the US military.
The US military will not be fighting the US citizenry in a hypothetical clean room, it'll be fighting in America. Who are you going to bomb, who are you going to strafe, when your opposition can quietly fade into the populace that provides your material?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
You're getting into spherical cow[1] territory if you think the US citizenry couldn't defeat the US military.
The US military will not be fighting the US citizenry in a hypothetical clean room, it'll be fighting in America. Who are you going to bomb, who are you going to strafe, when your opposition can quietly fade into the populace that provides your material?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
> The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military,
I'm tired of reminding HNers about Aghanistan.
I'm tired of reminding HNers about Aghanistan.
IEDs were far more of a problem in Afghanistan than small arms.
Yep. And who do you think have the easier time getting ingredients for an IED, the person with a gun or the person without a gun?
Who has the better chance at ambushing and getting away with the enemys weapons: the one with the gun or the one without a gun?
Who has the better chance at ambushing and getting away with the enemys weapons: the one with the gun or the one without a gun?
You can do a lot of damage with IEDs, but you can’t overthrow the government with IEDs.
Look at Turkey. The primary tool was encrypted communications and information dissemination. That’s modern power that citizens should have. Right now power comes from information and the preservation of speech and private communications, not a few handguns and rifles (or IEDs).
When the 2nd amendment was written a gun was relatively way more powerful than it is in today’s world. If you had a group of men with guns you were basically on par with the government military.
Look at Turkey. The primary tool was encrypted communications and information dissemination. That’s modern power that citizens should have. Right now power comes from information and the preservation of speech and private communications, not a few handguns and rifles (or IEDs).
When the 2nd amendment was written a gun was relatively way more powerful than it is in today’s world. If you had a group of men with guns you were basically on par with the government military.
IMO Turkey has mostly failed now.
However, I'm not saying I'd want them a civil war, just that it failed despite doing everything "right" it seems.
However, I'm not saying I'd want them a civil war, just that it failed despite doing everything "right" it seems.
[deleted]
That's an away match.
Can you elaborate?
I believe he's referring to the Taliban's ability to hold off two modern armies (USSR in the 80s, USA in the 00s) with a much more basic arsenal than either super-power brought to bear.
380 million Americans, 2 million members of the military.
Unless the US were to nuke itself, given the geography, a motivated citizenry could easily take on the US military. Not a scenario I want to imagine, but the US military has troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq — imagine that kind of conflict in the US. Just look at rebels in Syria to see this on a smaller scale.
Unless the US were to nuke itself, given the geography, a motivated citizenry could easily take on the US military. Not a scenario I want to imagine, but the US military has troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq — imagine that kind of conflict in the US. Just look at rebels in Syria to see this on a smaller scale.
Where does it say you can regulate my rights?
WRT the 2A, it's right there in the text: "well regulated".
WRT other rights... Explicitly? Not always in the Constitution. But, if you think you can cry "Fire!" in a theater, you would be mistaken.
SCOTUS has upheld reasonable restrictions on rights over and over. It's a settled matter.
(edited - cleaned up my thoughts a bit)
WRT other rights... Explicitly? Not always in the Constitution. But, if you think you can cry "Fire!" in a theater, you would be mistaken.
SCOTUS has upheld reasonable restrictions on rights over and over. It's a settled matter.
(edited - cleaned up my thoughts a bit)
"Well regulated" in it's historical context doesn't mean anything close to what we think of as "regulation" today. The phrase means "functional" or "functioning". E.g. “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”,
or "The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
Stop quoting that case. That was SCOTUS upholding the right of the government to clamp down on speech that encouraged draft dodging or could even be marginally interpreted as disagreeing with it during wartime.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
It ain't Dred Scott dumb, but it's up there in stupidity and retarded law.
Well regulated doesn't mean the feds get to control the details of what the militia can use either. The militia is every able-bodied 18-47 year old. The regulated part implies a command structure which the National Guard provides.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
It ain't Dred Scott dumb, but it's up there in stupidity and retarded law.
Well regulated doesn't mean the feds get to control the details of what the militia can use either. The militia is every able-bodied 18-47 year old. The regulated part implies a command structure which the National Guard provides.
>The regulated part implies a command structure which the National Guard provides.
That's completely wrong. Each of the 1st ten Amendments - The Bill of Rights - enumerates rights of the individual against government power. Its absolutely absurd to argue that the 2nd amendment somehow refers to a government commanded and organized military body and not to the right of citizens to remained armed to prevent the government from getting out of line.
That's completely wrong. Each of the 1st ten Amendments - The Bill of Rights - enumerates rights of the individual against government power. Its absolutely absurd to argue that the 2nd amendment somehow refers to a government commanded and organized military body and not to the right of citizens to remained armed to prevent the government from getting out of line.
I'm not sure what case you're thinking of, because I didn't explicitly mention one.
Chaplinsky v. NH was in 1942 and had nothing to do with draft dodging.
Since then, the courts have ruled inconsistently on the matter. The only common thread is the courts mostly agree that some restriction on speech is permissible - where that line lays is very much up for debate.
WRT the militia - the government disagrees with your assertion. A random citizen cannot go into the gun store and buy a machine gun, or grenades. Special (and expensive) permitting is required. If you're contention is that these restrictions are unConstitutional, I'm not really sure we should bother debating the point.
Chaplinsky v. NH was in 1942 and had nothing to do with draft dodging.
Since then, the courts have ruled inconsistently on the matter. The only common thread is the courts mostly agree that some restriction on speech is permissible - where that line lays is very much up for debate.
WRT the militia - the government disagrees with your assertion. A random citizen cannot go into the gun store and buy a machine gun, or grenades. Special (and expensive) permitting is required. If you're contention is that these restrictions are unConstitutional, I'm not really sure we should bother debating the point.
They were responding to the mention of "fire in a crowded theater," a reference to Schenck v. United States.
Regulated does not imply a command structure, look up the 18th century definition of that word please. Also, to be clear, the National Guard IS the government. The purpose of the 2nd A was to provide a check against the government— it wasn’t a protection for the states — it was a protection for individuals — the Bill of Rights was a declaration of individual liberties not protections for the states. The tenth amendment is an outlier, but even that was part of a coordinated effort to limit the size, scope and power of government.
It does not, because the 2nd amendment protects arms, not munitions (for example, bombs).
Here is the entire text of the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What's the difference? The 2A certainly applies to cannons. Are those arms or munitions? Grenades are legal to own, just need the tax stamp.
Arms are munitions. Not all munitions are arms.
More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List
More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List
I think the distinction is between "arms" and "ordinance". Reading through the comments here, it seems "munitions" is a super set of both.
Novel thought. I could definitely see an argument for it falling under 2A.
This is actually a question that was featured in an xkcd comic[1].
[1]: https://www.xkcd.com/504/
[1]: https://www.xkcd.com/504/
We also know that independent researchers often invented new cryptographic techniques in parallel with the military.
this itar business had a huge chilling effect on the formative years of internet protocol design. public key was available at the time. here were alot of loud voices in ietf clamoring for strong foundational security. The US position made it highly impractical to use, and may have cost us an effective and ubiquitous security/identity model.
They have an agenda that is clear but it doesn't mean they should be shutout because the investment they make can help push new ideas forward.
Alternatively, there is an abundance of private sources of funding.
One of the founding principles of American government was the freedom from state surveillance and intrusion into private homes. Nowadays, the federal government of the USA can legally use any technology that is patented, so why should they be allowed to restrict inventors from disclosing or selling IP that inhibits surveillance?
One of the founding principles of American government was the freedom from state surveillance and intrusion into private homes. Nowadays, the federal government of the USA can legally use any technology that is patented, so why should they be allowed to restrict inventors from disclosing or selling IP that inhibits surveillance?
Yes, they made some bad choices, and then they corrected them. They also funded the research that created the field. Things can be morally mixed. On balance though, the US military funding for cryptography has been pretty clearly a good thing.
I love how any defense of US military history often boils down to, “sure they did terrible things in the past, but we definitely learned from them.”
I’m sure people have been saying that for decades if not centuries. Terrible things just get declassified slowly so we only learn about them later.
I’m sure people have been saying that for decades if not centuries. Terrible things just get declassified slowly so we only learn about them later.
You realize that the US military is the reason the world isn't ruled by Hitler and/or Stalin, right?
Oh man, is this why I have to complete all this encryption and export compliance bullcrap every time I have an iOS release?
I hear you, and I want to make a "times change" argument.
This is my perspective, because I read too much scifi: I can conceive of a couple possibilities in 300 years.
1. Humanity is gone or stone-aged. Either because it failed to colonize before being wiped out by disease, because it nuked itself, or because it implemented AI in a way that got itself killed.
2. Humanity has turned peaceful, formed a global community (if not wholly, then at least nearly so regarding scientific resources), and colonized.
I draw such a sharp line because I don't see how the resources to colonize can be mustered without justifying it with an arms race unless peaceful cooperation is established. Without this, I think somebody is going to put a nuke in orbit around Mars and call themselves King/Queen of the inner solar system.
Therefore, I think we should be working towards the cultural changes that I believe necessary immediately. This is why I'm a staunch proponent of universal education, universal healthcare, gun control, etc. I think there's no better time than the present to "be in the race together" globally than now. Given climate change, death of bees, super-bacterias, and narcissists with penis-size complexes holding fingers over red buttons, I see a ticking clock.
Avoid (1) by tackling culture, is my theory, and I think that's what these googler employees are here. (I post this very much looking forward to being challenged on all points)
This is my perspective, because I read too much scifi: I can conceive of a couple possibilities in 300 years.
1. Humanity is gone or stone-aged. Either because it failed to colonize before being wiped out by disease, because it nuked itself, or because it implemented AI in a way that got itself killed.
2. Humanity has turned peaceful, formed a global community (if not wholly, then at least nearly so regarding scientific resources), and colonized.
I draw such a sharp line because I don't see how the resources to colonize can be mustered without justifying it with an arms race unless peaceful cooperation is established. Without this, I think somebody is going to put a nuke in orbit around Mars and call themselves King/Queen of the inner solar system.
Therefore, I think we should be working towards the cultural changes that I believe necessary immediately. This is why I'm a staunch proponent of universal education, universal healthcare, gun control, etc. I think there's no better time than the present to "be in the race together" globally than now. Given climate change, death of bees, super-bacterias, and narcissists with penis-size complexes holding fingers over red buttons, I see a ticking clock.
Avoid (1) by tackling culture, is my theory, and I think that's what these googler employees are here. (I post this very much looking forward to being challenged on all points)
> Either because it failed to colonize before being wiped out by disease, because it nuked itself, or because it implemented AI in a way that got itself killed.
If the probability of a kind of disaster is sufficient to blow up Earth, it is likely that the same kind of disaster will blow up all the handful of colonies we can hope to build. At astronomic scale, the speed of light is quite slow.
If the probability of a kind of disaster is sufficient to blow up Earth, it is likely that the same kind of disaster will blow up all the handful of colonies we can hope to build. At astronomic scale, the speed of light is quite slow.
Potentially. I think the possibility of quarantine is much higher between planets, though.
If you're so worried about the world destroying itself with its own weapons, how are you going to enforce your weapons ban without using weapons?
But if all the guns were gone we wouldn't need any anymore, ergo world peace, cats and dogs living together, and mcdonalds becomes vegan. /s
The same way Japan "enforces" around violent and petty crime - by removing the need for it, and establishing a culture opposed to it.
It's not nearly as easy as that but that's the basic summation of my philosophy around the idea.
It's not nearly as easy as that but that's the basic summation of my philosophy around the idea.
[deleted]
I worry that culture doesnt help at the top of leadership.
Once you get to the top of an organization, only a few people need to listen to you. As long as you keep their paychecks and power, they will listen to you.
Dictators dont care if war is unpopular as long as its beneficial.
I think nukes may be obsolete because war is no longer beneficial, but leadership of a company may be 100% set on finding AI by any means necessary.
Once you get to the top of an organization, only a few people need to listen to you. As long as you keep their paychecks and power, they will listen to you.
Dictators dont care if war is unpopular as long as its beneficial.
I think nukes may be obsolete because war is no longer beneficial, but leadership of a company may be 100% set on finding AI by any means necessary.
Can you clarify your second line, "Once you get to the top of an organization, only a few people need to listen to you. As long as you keep their paychecks and power, they will listen to you." Are you saying that everyone has to do what you say because you pay them? If so, I don't think that point applies to this situation - we're talking Google engineers, they shouldn't be hard pressed to pick up their things and find a job elsewhere that aligns better with their values.
Capital interests wont go away quietly, but I hope you're right.
I doubt they will go away peacefully, either. I cannot think of an instance in history where they have though I’d love to be wrong.
I honestly cling to the hope daily that the internet has changed what people's reactions to power will be in the future. It's the one of the few deep things that's changed.
there's a dead post from @Ataturk who nails my arguments against your point, but doesn't do so very nicely.
history should be a guid here.
presuming penis-size conversation is anything more than an intentional dig by a chauvinist powermonger, probably isn't helpful here.
history should be a guid here.
presuming penis-size conversation is anything more than an intentional dig by a chauvinist powermonger, probably isn't helpful here.
I don't see the dead post, though I've looked. I'm happy to hear the points.
after removing insulting remarks, ataturk's comments looks like this (which i personally agree with):
Globalism == lack of agency, the end of voting and elections.
Universal education == total indoctrination and ideological consistency of the collectivistic variety.
Universal healthcare == the end of individual choice, individual responsibility, all new extensive taxing regimes, the destruction of the individual on many levels.
Gun Control == People control. Then total domination by the state and a monopoly on the use of force. Which, by the way, has never worked out well for any citizen anywhere.
Globalism == lack of agency, the end of voting and elections.
Universal education == total indoctrination and ideological consistency of the collectivistic variety.
Universal healthcare == the end of individual choice, individual responsibility, all new extensive taxing regimes, the destruction of the individual on many levels.
Gun Control == People control. Then total domination by the state and a monopoly on the use of force. Which, by the way, has never worked out well for any citizen anywhere.
Thank you for taking the time to find and share the points. I'd like to rebuke :
>Globalism == lack of agency, end of voting and elections
If federalism didn't lead to this, why would globalism? What even is globalism? I am skeptical of this because "globalism" seems to be used as a catch-all alt-right bogeyman lately.
>universal education == total indoctrination, ideological consistency
Universal access to education doesn't have to mean homogeneous curriculum. It doesn't have to mean lack of education choices. It doesn't even have to mean requirement to receive education.
Another thing I find curious - the very people I find rejecting education "collectivism" are often people who wouldn't blink before forcing their own "indoctrination" upon others. We fight this fight in Texas far too often - should schools teach facts (evolution), or give "fair credence" to falsehoods (intelligent design) because of religion? Woops, out goes falsehoods as soon as the satanists get involved and also flex their constitutional rights, never mind, we'll take evolution!
>universal healthcare == the end of individual choice
I don't see why this has to be true, it isn't in any of the current implementations of universal healthcare.
>end of individual responsibility
Are you presently responsible for your water being clean? Are you presently responsible for the quality of your roadways? Are you presently responsible for the guarantee that your medication contains advertised active ingredients that do as it says on the label?
>Extensive taxing regimes
Shift military funding, close ultra-rich tax loopholes.
>destruction of the individual
Fail to see how this is true. Unsupported by argument.
>gun control == people control
False equivalence.
>then, total domination by the state and a monopoly on the use of force
Currently working just fine in countries with gun control laws, which, by the way, completely nullifies the false "has never worked out well" absolute you ended with. Furthermore, the USA has right now a monopoly on the use of force. The US and its laws have sovereign control over whether you are allowed to use force or not. You have almost no say in the matter. Furthermore, this isn't 1776. The gap in armament between civilians and a martial state is so large as to be hilarious. Were the need to arise, US combined armed forces could drone strike, Tomahawk, artillery, AC130, or just door to door ground and pound any organized militia to dust. Or, you know, nuke it.
Are you, private US citizen, allowed to build a nuke?
I see this kind of response a lot to "the globalist threat."
What's the end game, for people that believe these things? Endless culture war? A galaxy-spanning human civilization that still has their "I'm an American and you're Chinese" safe little lines? Is there a fear that the "wrong" culture will persist into the future?
>Globalism == lack of agency, end of voting and elections
If federalism didn't lead to this, why would globalism? What even is globalism? I am skeptical of this because "globalism" seems to be used as a catch-all alt-right bogeyman lately.
>universal education == total indoctrination, ideological consistency
Universal access to education doesn't have to mean homogeneous curriculum. It doesn't have to mean lack of education choices. It doesn't even have to mean requirement to receive education.
Another thing I find curious - the very people I find rejecting education "collectivism" are often people who wouldn't blink before forcing their own "indoctrination" upon others. We fight this fight in Texas far too often - should schools teach facts (evolution), or give "fair credence" to falsehoods (intelligent design) because of religion? Woops, out goes falsehoods as soon as the satanists get involved and also flex their constitutional rights, never mind, we'll take evolution!
>universal healthcare == the end of individual choice
I don't see why this has to be true, it isn't in any of the current implementations of universal healthcare.
>end of individual responsibility
Are you presently responsible for your water being clean? Are you presently responsible for the quality of your roadways? Are you presently responsible for the guarantee that your medication contains advertised active ingredients that do as it says on the label?
>Extensive taxing regimes
Shift military funding, close ultra-rich tax loopholes.
>destruction of the individual
Fail to see how this is true. Unsupported by argument.
>gun control == people control
False equivalence.
>then, total domination by the state and a monopoly on the use of force
Currently working just fine in countries with gun control laws, which, by the way, completely nullifies the false "has never worked out well" absolute you ended with. Furthermore, the USA has right now a monopoly on the use of force. The US and its laws have sovereign control over whether you are allowed to use force or not. You have almost no say in the matter. Furthermore, this isn't 1776. The gap in armament between civilians and a martial state is so large as to be hilarious. Were the need to arise, US combined armed forces could drone strike, Tomahawk, artillery, AC130, or just door to door ground and pound any organized militia to dust. Or, you know, nuke it.
Are you, private US citizen, allowed to build a nuke?
I see this kind of response a lot to "the globalist threat."
What's the end game, for people that believe these things? Endless culture war? A galaxy-spanning human civilization that still has their "I'm an American and you're Chinese" safe little lines? Is there a fear that the "wrong" culture will persist into the future?
Not the author of the dead post, and definitely not a fan of the alt-right, but the term globalism immediately resonated with me when I first heard it:
> What's the end game, for people that believe these things? Endless culture war? A galaxy-spanning human civilization that still has their "I'm an American and you're Chinese" safe little lines?
If we didn't have several superpowers on this planet, but only one unified government instead, what would whistleblowers do? Right now Snowden can fly to Russia, and Chinese dissidents can voice their opinions in the West. In a truly globalized world, there'd be nowhere to run.
We try to maximize competition and avoid monopolies and cartels in our economy. Why should we aim straight for the opposite when it comes to our governments?
> What's the end game, for people that believe these things? Endless culture war? A galaxy-spanning human civilization that still has their "I'm an American and you're Chinese" safe little lines?
If we didn't have several superpowers on this planet, but only one unified government instead, what would whistleblowers do? Right now Snowden can fly to Russia, and Chinese dissidents can voice their opinions in the West. In a truly globalized world, there'd be nowhere to run.
We try to maximize competition and avoid monopolies and cartels in our economy. Why should we aim straight for the opposite when it comes to our governments?
The funding come from the DoD because any other appropriate entity is financially starved because the DoD gets so much money. The latest budget provides them:
$700,000,000,000
Or as Obama said in the 2016 State of the Union:
"We spend more on defense than the next 8 nations COMBINED."
Keep in mind, most of that 8 are allies.
I struggle to see why we should be praising a self-fulfilling prophecy.
$700,000,000,000
Or as Obama said in the 2016 State of the Union:
"We spend more on defense than the next 8 nations COMBINED."
Keep in mind, most of that 8 are allies.
I struggle to see why we should be praising a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Naming it 'defense' is already a huge stretch. I realize every country does this but it is as much or more about projecting power all across the globe as it is defense.
Fwiw, it used to be called the far more accurate Department of War.
George Carlin had a fantastic bit about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0
> I realize every country does this but it is as much or more about projecting power all across the globe as it is defense.
I disagree that "every country" does this. Many countries in Europe and Asia do not use their defense forces as a tool for attacking other countries and getting involved in regional conflicts that were only affecting people in those countries. And countries that do it are usually just "helping" US-lead invasions of countries (an example would be Australia -- the single reason we were ever in the Vietnam War was because of the US).
(While I may be a biased given that America bombed my home country and engaged in a "peacekeeping mission" when I was a child, for a civil war that had been going on for many years and had nothing at all to do with the US, I never understood how Americans can see invasion of other countries as being anything other than that.)
I disagree that "every country" does this. Many countries in Europe and Asia do not use their defense forces as a tool for attacking other countries and getting involved in regional conflicts that were only affecting people in those countries. And countries that do it are usually just "helping" US-lead invasions of countries (an example would be Australia -- the single reason we were ever in the Vietnam War was because of the US).
(While I may be a biased given that America bombed my home country and engaged in a "peacekeeping mission" when I was a child, for a civil war that had been going on for many years and had nothing at all to do with the US, I never understood how Americans can see invasion of other countries as being anything other than that.)
> I disagree that "every country" does this.
I meant that they call their armies/airforces/navies 'defense'.
> Many countries in Europe and Asia do not use their defense forces as a tool for attacking other countries and getting involved in regional conflicts that were only affecting people in those countries.
I wished that were true, but almost all deployments of EU troops over the last 4 decades fall into that category. And there have been a lot of those.
> And countries that do it are usually just "helping" US-lead invasions of countries (an example would be Australia -- the single reason we were ever in the Vietnam War was because of the US).
Ditto Iraq, Afghanistan.
> While I may be a biased given that America bombed my home country and engaged in a "peacekeeping mission" when I was a child, for a civil war that had been going on for many years and had nothing at all to do with the US, I never understood how Americans can see invasion of other countries as being anything other than that.
Agreed, they are invasions, and the worst ones are the ones under some kind of pretext.
Where are you from originally?
I meant that they call their armies/airforces/navies 'defense'.
> Many countries in Europe and Asia do not use their defense forces as a tool for attacking other countries and getting involved in regional conflicts that were only affecting people in those countries.
I wished that were true, but almost all deployments of EU troops over the last 4 decades fall into that category. And there have been a lot of those.
> And countries that do it are usually just "helping" US-lead invasions of countries (an example would be Australia -- the single reason we were ever in the Vietnam War was because of the US).
Ditto Iraq, Afghanistan.
> While I may be a biased given that America bombed my home country and engaged in a "peacekeeping mission" when I was a child, for a civil war that had been going on for many years and had nothing at all to do with the US, I never understood how Americans can see invasion of other countries as being anything other than that.
Agreed, they are invasions, and the worst ones are the ones under some kind of pretext.
Where are you from originally?
There was a lot of EU and NATO forces involved in the Balkans not that long ago
It's not Defense. But I was trying to keep it simple.
Spending on its own isn't the only measure. The US is incredibly wasteful with its military spending where other countries with better political systems are more savvy. Plus the US has to invent 80% of the tech in the first place, something that costs 10x what it does to replicate it.
While the US military is wasteful, I don't think you'll find a military that is enormously less wasteful. After all, the largest line item in the DOD budget by far is salaries.
Cough Nimrod Cough La 85 Cough "the Age of the manned Fighter is over" plenty of countries have inefficient r screwed up military procurement.
Just imagine if we stopped spending on defense in the 80s when the cold war ended and we had to deal with today's Russia with decades old technology
I think we would be fine with a smaller military. Nobody is talking about completely stopping military expenditures. The question is whether it really needs to be as big as it is right now.
Overturning so many regimes in petrol filled countries is a messy business. I think a big chunk of the spending goes to intelligence and misinformation.
Personally I think a big chunk goes to not well thought out missions like Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq. It seems nobody is willing to admit that there is no path to winning or ending things so they just keep going and spending a lot of money and energy. And the defense contractors are certainly happy with this.
Or how about having to deal with the rapidly ascendant Chinese military that is annexing vast territory in Asia right now? There's nothing they respect except for strength, they're not even subtle about that fact.
Or if the US hadn't spent over a trillion dollars defending South Korea from the China, USSR, North Korea axis across decades. South Korea would not exist as we know it today. It'd more likely look like North Korea.
There's an exceptionally strong argument for the US working with regional military allies in Europe and Asia on defense and having a very powerful military to match its $20 trillion economy. Should the spending be more like $450 billion or $730 billion - that's the primary debate.
Or if the US hadn't spent over a trillion dollars defending South Korea from the China, USSR, North Korea axis across decades. South Korea would not exist as we know it today. It'd more likely look like North Korea.
There's an exceptionally strong argument for the US working with regional military allies in Europe and Asia on defense and having a very powerful military to match its $20 trillion economy. Should the spending be more like $450 billion or $730 billion - that's the primary debate.
The Cold War ended in the 90s, not when the Wall came down. Now how would we possibly handle all those T-72s with just M1 Abrams? If anyone still fought conventional wars.
We aren't going to go to war with Russia, despite the propaganda that everyone is spreading.
Wars between nuclear countries don't happen any more.
Wars between nuclear countries don't happen any more.
The reason we aren't going to war with Russia is because Russian leaders know that it is impossible to win a war against the current US military.
The reason it's impossible to win a war against the current US military is because the US has spent an obscene amount of money building it for decades.
If the US military were not capable of defending Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics would be under Russian rule today.
The reason it's impossible to win a war against the current US military is because the US has spent an obscene amount of money building it for decades.
If the US military were not capable of defending Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics would be under Russian rule today.
No, it is because of the nukes.
Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation.
If we spent 1 tenth the amount on our military, we'd still have the power to blow up the entire world X times over.
I just think that if you have the ability to destroy the entire world, then that's a powerful enough military and you don't need anything more for defense.
Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation.
If we spent 1 tenth the amount on our military, we'd still have the power to blow up the entire world X times over.
I just think that if you have the ability to destroy the entire world, then that's a powerful enough military and you don't need anything more for defense.
You actually believe that the US would use nuclear weapons against Russia, ensuring the deaths of 10s of millions of Americans and sparking global nuclear war, if Russia invaded Estonia?
The only thing preventing Eastern Europe from being invaded is the conventional military. The US will never risk it's own existence for another country. The Russians know this.
The only thing preventing Eastern Europe from being invaded is the conventional military. The US will never risk it's own existence for another country. The Russians know this.
I don't want the US to be involved in proxy wars with other countries.
So no, I don't believe that the US would do that and I am happy about that.
The US would only use Nukes if there was an attack on the US.
I want the US to stay out of all wars that aren't directed related to attacks on US soil and US citizens.
If the EU is worried about invasion, then they should have their own military to defend themselves.
So no, I don't believe that the US would do that and I am happy about that.
The US would only use Nukes if there was an attack on the US.
I want the US to stay out of all wars that aren't directed related to attacks on US soil and US citizens.
If the EU is worried about invasion, then they should have their own military to defend themselves.
I suspect conventional war is a thing of the past.
Cyber-warfare is going to be where it's at. You spend years infiltrating adversary networks, backdooring critical systems/infrastructure and exfiltrating intelligence so when the time comes for conflict, you already know what cards they're going to play, where all the pieces are on the map and you can shut it all down with a few commands. Then you start your blitzkrieg unopposed.
It's telling Russia, China and North Korea so heavily encourage cyber-espionage and malware development. Meanwhile in the US, we've got idiots passing laws criminalizing mere infosec research. We're handicapping ourselves against a threat our adversaries are all too eager to employ.
Cyber-warfare is going to be where it's at. You spend years infiltrating adversary networks, backdooring critical systems/infrastructure and exfiltrating intelligence so when the time comes for conflict, you already know what cards they're going to play, where all the pieces are on the map and you can shut it all down with a few commands. Then you start your blitzkrieg unopposed.
It's telling Russia, China and North Korea so heavily encourage cyber-espionage and malware development. Meanwhile in the US, we've got idiots passing laws criminalizing mere infosec research. We're handicapping ourselves against a threat our adversaries are all too eager to employ.
India and Pakistan went to war briefly in 1999 and both of them had nuclear weapons at the time (and still do, I think). I wouldn't rule out the possibility of future wars between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
That 700 billion seems small compared to the 2 trillion that we spend on Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid.
>the military funded the majority of the early advances in systems, networking, and cryptography
For the purposes of being better at waging war. I am not disagreeing with your statement, but I think leaving out the reason why is treating the military like it's "NASA with a few guns laying around" and implying that one can work on weapons systems without having any moral culpability for how they are used.
For the purposes of being better at waging war. I am not disagreeing with your statement, but I think leaving out the reason why is treating the military like it's "NASA with a few guns laying around" and implying that one can work on weapons systems without having any moral culpability for how they are used.
It's perfectly possible to remember every technological invention the military has ever been involved in and still object to participation in military research.
Possible reasons, using Wernher von Braun's rocket development as an example:
- He, or somebody else, would have invented rockets anyway at some point
- That 'some point' would have been much earlier if the money spent on military (research & some of the rest) would instead have been put into rockets in the first place
- even if the two mechanisms abovc were not true: I'd probably be willing to forgo the benefits of the space age if it meant undoing WW2 and the Holocaust
- In most ethical frameworks except utilitarianism, it's strongly discourage to accept some evil for some perceived greater good. Meaning: Even if rockets have saved far more lives than WW2 vanquished, participating in the project is morally dubious at best
Specifically to Google's project:
- This seems to actually invert the usual idea of the military funding basic research that later gets adapted for civilian use. They are building on the fundamental research into AI already done by Google and others, and using it very specifically to kill people. Any advances useful for other purposes would seem to be even more coincidental than usual.
- While "minimising collateral damage" i. e. civilian casualties may seem to be a worthy cause, it cannot be ignored that such advances are likely to result in greater use of the technology. Drones are actually the best example of this effect. Just look at the Obama administration's willingness to expand the use of drone strikes, which was a direct result of the technology appearing to be the lesser evil compared to manned missions on the ground.
Possible reasons, using Wernher von Braun's rocket development as an example:
- He, or somebody else, would have invented rockets anyway at some point
- That 'some point' would have been much earlier if the money spent on military (research & some of the rest) would instead have been put into rockets in the first place
- even if the two mechanisms abovc were not true: I'd probably be willing to forgo the benefits of the space age if it meant undoing WW2 and the Holocaust
- In most ethical frameworks except utilitarianism, it's strongly discourage to accept some evil for some perceived greater good. Meaning: Even if rockets have saved far more lives than WW2 vanquished, participating in the project is morally dubious at best
Specifically to Google's project:
- This seems to actually invert the usual idea of the military funding basic research that later gets adapted for civilian use. They are building on the fundamental research into AI already done by Google and others, and using it very specifically to kill people. Any advances useful for other purposes would seem to be even more coincidental than usual.
- While "minimising collateral damage" i. e. civilian casualties may seem to be a worthy cause, it cannot be ignored that such advances are likely to result in greater use of the technology. Drones are actually the best example of this effect. Just look at the Obama administration's willingness to expand the use of drone strikes, which was a direct result of the technology appearing to be the lesser evil compared to manned missions on the ground.
You are saying that military R&D is important no matter what they are involved in. This incredibly stupid reasoning can be used to justify the development viruses that can erradicate the human species.
> DoD/Pentagon involvement in artificial intelligence research shouldn't be viewed as a necessarily bad thing.
Let's be spesific: they are using current AI algorithms to track everyone's movements from airborn imagery. It will be used to kill people in drone strikes and for population control.
> DoD/Pentagon involvement in artificial intelligence research shouldn't be viewed as a necessarily bad thing.
Let's be spesific: they are using current AI algorithms to track everyone's movements from airborn imagery. It will be used to kill people in drone strikes and for population control.
As opposed to using dumb bombs which are far more likely to have collateral damage.
I'll take this over massive world wars.
I'd rather have neither, but I'm realistic.
I'd rather have neither, but I'm realistic.
One thing is acknowledging that if you pour lots of money into getting better at anything (space exploration, waging war, etc) you'll get cool technological advances applicable in other areas.
Another thing is to specifically choose to dedicate resources to one of those areas instead of another area. Why can't google bid on AI projects for better detection of geological landmarks in other planets? (which I'm guessing is a similar endeavor to what the article mentions - and already has ongoing research)
Another thing is to specifically choose to dedicate resources to one of those areas instead of another area. Why can't google bid on AI projects for better detection of geological landmarks in other planets? (which I'm guessing is a similar endeavor to what the article mentions - and already has ongoing research)
Steve Blank talks a lot about this history of Silicon Valley and how most of the original technology scene was started by DoD projects.
https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
Well the project "uses artificial intelligence to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes."
That's a direct application of tech to killing people, not some abstract network or compiler tech. There's a big difference.
That's a direct application of tech to killing people, not some abstract network or compiler tech. There's a big difference.
The flip side is better targeting should result in less collateral deaths
Broken glass fallacy. Just because government and military funded some technology does not mean that technology would not be in an advanced state otherwise. Especially if you consider the countless failures and unnecessary excessive spending that took the resources indirectly from people and inventors. Besides brains that worked for military and government funded projects would perhaps find much better things to work on otherwise.
Military funding is used as a slight of hand. The legislature scares the public, the public hands over money, and then the military is used to invest the money in long term goals to build a future technological society that the private sector is wholly unwilling to do because of short term profit focus.
This also has the benefit of getting war averse liberals to say nice things about the large standing army and bloody foreign interventions of the US empire, most of which have failed to produce anything other than blowback and civil war across the globe.
https://archive.org/details/NoamChomsky-ScienceMilitaryFundi...
This also has the benefit of getting war averse liberals to say nice things about the large standing army and bloody foreign interventions of the US empire, most of which have failed to produce anything other than blowback and civil war across the globe.
https://archive.org/details/NoamChomsky-ScienceMilitaryFundi...
have you watched "Good Kill" or maybe even are familiar with the work of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung's research on US military drone program at Ramstein airbase? I guess not, because what you're proposing are further crimes against humanity. If the US wants AI/autonomous weapons then they should agree to have their troops held accountable at the The Hague International Court of Justice.
- The Global Assassination Grid: The Infrastructure and People behind Drone Killings: https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8425-the_global_assassination_gr...
- The Drone Papers: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
- Graphs, Drones & Phones: The role of social-graphs for Drones in the War on Terror: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7259-graphs_drones_phones
- The Global Assassination Grid: The Infrastructure and People behind Drone Killings: https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8425-the_global_assassination_gr...
- The Drone Papers: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
- Graphs, Drones & Phones: The role of social-graphs for Drones in the War on Terror: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7259-graphs_drones_phones
> If the US wants AI/autonomous weapons then they should agree to have their troops held accountable at the The Hague International Court of Justice.
Why would US agree to that if Russia or China couldn't care less about it? That'd be just handicapping the military.
Why would US agree to that if Russia or China couldn't care less about it? That'd be just handicapping the military.
because it'd be less hypocritical when playing "world-police"
But that'd cripple the world-police and China or Russia would have much more leverage.
The military also funded advances in airplanes, trucks, and medicine, but that doesn't mean that doctors should have no qualms about working on biological weapons.
Also, many people, including myself, consider drone strikes to be state-sponsored terrorism. Just because some part of the military may be justifiable, does not mean all of it is.
Also, many people, including myself, consider drone strikes to be state-sponsored terrorism. Just because some part of the military may be justifiable, does not mean all of it is.
Arguments from utility do not form a solid basis to argue about morality.
As Carl Jung might say, just because a thing has base origins, it doesn't mean that it has to be a base thing. Google should not shrug and say "from violence we came to violence we will return." I'm moved by the people speaking out, as much as I am disappointed to hear of Mr. Schmidt's involvement with the Pentagon.
They cost a great deal of R&D budget for their role in the development IT technology, and the larger part of development came from non military research, from academia and companies like Bell Labs.
The Google workers urging their CEO to pull out of Pentagon projects are the ones who do not have such short memories as to be distracted from the blatant deceptions and disasters carried out in recent history, with no sign of relenting.
The Google workers urging their CEO to pull out of Pentagon projects are the ones who do not have such short memories as to be distracted from the blatant deceptions and disasters carried out in recent history, with no sign of relenting.
This idea of justifying military buildup by it's beneficial trickle down into civilian technology always struck me as very odd. It seems like an absurdly inefficient and roundabout way of funding R&D. If the government wants to invest in research they should just invest in research.
Whilst agreeing in part, the history of martially-motivated technical development through all of human history is remarkable. I'd argue it's been a vastly greater influence than so-called market motivations.
As an evolutionary selective pressure, war and military necessity are unparalleled.
Re-reading Samuel B. Griffith's translation of The Art of War, I noticed that he mentions, in 1963, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China, which had only begun delivering volumes (the work remains in progress). That would include not only metalurgy, but entire volumes devoted to both martial and marine technologies.
As an evolutionary selective pressure, war and military necessity are unparalleled.
Re-reading Samuel B. Griffith's translation of The Art of War, I noticed that he mentions, in 1963, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China, which had only begun delivering volumes (the work remains in progress). That would include not only metalurgy, but entire volumes devoted to both martial and marine technologies.
It still is. It is not necessary for world peace to help the Pentagon to build better killing machines.
Pentagon and their killing machines is the #1 reason why there’s now peace here in Balkans, for 18 years and counting.
I don’t think people of ex-Yugoslavia would stop killing each other without being forced to.
I don’t think people of ex-Yugoslavia would stop killing each other without being forced to.
'build better killing machines'. They are able to kill people well enough already.
Unless you're the one getting shot
You'd rather they had "worse" killing machines
Citation needed
Sure, I'll bite. Just falsify it: the Pentagon's killing machines have never brought about world peace, and world peace has never occurred while the Pentagon received killing machines.
You are blatantly embedding a false premise here; that the goal is or should be world peace.
That is an absolutely inane stance to take. How about instead of the obviously unattainable and unrealistic goal of "world peace", we just go for "more peace", or "less violent death" or similar goals. It is very hard to argue that American hegemony has not significantly reduced conflicts around the world. Not all of them, not equitably, and generally in pursuit of economic rather than ideological interests, but there is basically nothing to be gained by opening up the US to actually being threatened by competing powers.
That is an absolutely inane stance to take. How about instead of the obviously unattainable and unrealistic goal of "world peace", we just go for "more peace", or "less violent death" or similar goals. It is very hard to argue that American hegemony has not significantly reduced conflicts around the world. Not all of them, not equitably, and generally in pursuit of economic rather than ideological interests, but there is basically nothing to be gained by opening up the US to actually being threatened by competing powers.
You say that as if “world peace” was an attainable goal in any realistic timeframe. War doesn’t exist because people “hate peace”.
I didn't bring world peace into the thread, but at any rate there's also the saying that "All war represents a failure of diplomacy," which I tend to agree with. I also think "are indifferent toward" should replace "hate" there.
People also seem to forget that the Google self driving car was initially developed by the team that one the DARPA challenge. Government, especially the military have been funding all the risky tech that Google profits from. Even google itself was funded by a government grant. Google's logo has been on the side of rockets launching spy satellites for years. Google Maps was originally a government contractor. Google the company knows who butters their bread.
What the google employees need to do is push for a civilian government research and science funding effort, like ARPA was back in the day. Unfortunately that sort of funding is politically dead, while military funding is always in style.
What the google employees need to do is push for a civilian government research and science funding effort, like ARPA was back in the day. Unfortunately that sort of funding is politically dead, while military funding is always in style.
Idealists on the left would apparently prefer China getting a complete monopoly on military AI and expanding their dictatorship globally instead of being pragmatic.
Reminder, if you work in tech you are collecting blood money because everything we use was initially funded by the military for military application. If you are going to attack Google for this and don't leave the industry you are a hypocrite
Reminder, if you work in tech you are collecting blood money because everything we use was initially funded by the military for military application. If you are going to attack Google for this and don't leave the industry you are a hypocrite
[deleted]
> This may be an uncomfortable fact but people have surprisingly short memories: the military funded the majority of the early advances in systems, networking, [...]
And what do we have to show for it? Wikipedia is great and Youtube is entertaining, but the rest of the internet is horrible. I say that as a software developer.
Due to the wonderful internet our children now have attention spans far below the time a typical class lesson takes. The smartest brains on Earth are not building spaceships or curing disease, but rather implementing systems to get you to click on ads. Our bodies and habits are being tracked, our opinions manipulated, and our privacy is being handed of willingfully for a chat and photo-sharing platform.
Military tech _often_ has implications far beyond what the original scientists and engineers intended. Sometimes for the best. But as you allude AI to the internet, don't forget how much damage the internet is doing to us even as we enjoy it and profit from it.
And what do we have to show for it? Wikipedia is great and Youtube is entertaining, but the rest of the internet is horrible. I say that as a software developer.
Due to the wonderful internet our children now have attention spans far below the time a typical class lesson takes. The smartest brains on Earth are not building spaceships or curing disease, but rather implementing systems to get you to click on ads. Our bodies and habits are being tracked, our opinions manipulated, and our privacy is being handed of willingfully for a chat and photo-sharing platform.
Military tech _often_ has implications far beyond what the original scientists and engineers intended. Sometimes for the best. But as you allude AI to the internet, don't forget how much damage the internet is doing to us even as we enjoy it and profit from it.
While that may be the reality of things, it surely can't be a justification in any way. If anything, I'd be afraid to revert back to those dark times where technological advancements were driven mainly by military needs.
Can you elaborate more on why you consider those to be "dark" times?
I strongly disagree with this comparison. In the prior, successful cases, the military funded research which was open, while in this case, the direction of information is reversed and the outcome is secret.
Or maybe they remember it perfectly, but don't consider it a valid argument to say, "X supported something you like 40 years ago, therefore X is beyond reproach"?
[deleted]
What's theoretical about drone strikes?
The military was also responsible for the miserable state of nuclear power in the United States.
yes but the weapon systems may be sold or transferred to some countries like Israel/Saudi Arabia eventually.. how would you view their use on protesters or civilians by them or would their be international laws that would prevent such use ?
What makes you think the signatories of the google letter have forgotten that?
Completely agree. If it isn't Google it'll be someone else.
I think DoD/Pentagon put up the funding for what later became Google maps. Not to mention the GPS constellation we all enjoy using.
Its a shame progress has to be made through these channels but it has proved very effective in the past.
I think DoD/Pentagon put up the funding for what later became Google maps. Not to mention the GPS constellation we all enjoy using.
Its a shame progress has to be made through these channels but it has proved very effective in the past.
If it isn't Google it'll be someone else.
The obvious reply is: great, then we're not needed, let someone else do it!
The obvious reply is: great, then we're not needed, let someone else do it!
This way you end up with someone unskilled taking a job and instead of 1 drone you have to send 10 because only 1 will hit the target.
> Completely agree. If it isn't Google it'll be someone else.
That's an excuse people without any morals often use. It's up to each one of us to do the right thing.
After all: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing” - or I would add that evil also rises when "good men" actually do the evil thing "because otherwise the bad men would do it anyway."
Google likely has the most advanced AI tech in the world right now. That means if that they allow the US government to use it, they will be directly responsible for accelerating the progress of autonomous killer robots or making them real in the first place. After all, I don't see too many other companies with AI that can learn the Go game within days and beat world champions.
That's an excuse people without any morals often use. It's up to each one of us to do the right thing.
After all: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing” - or I would add that evil also rises when "good men" actually do the evil thing "because otherwise the bad men would do it anyway."
Google likely has the most advanced AI tech in the world right now. That means if that they allow the US government to use it, they will be directly responsible for accelerating the progress of autonomous killer robots or making them real in the first place. After all, I don't see too many other companies with AI that can learn the Go game within days and beat world champions.
there is no inherent reason that these technologies need to be developed by the military, they could just as well be developed for civilian use when given the funding.
also it is not surprising that these things are invented by the dod when you're spending ~600-700 bilion a year on warfare and intelligence operations.
That last sentence of yours rubs me kinda the wrong way; that is a dangerious premise that could set us back ~30 years when the cold war and the arms race was well and alive, but this time we'd have robots and AI
also it is not surprising that these things are invented by the dod when you're spending ~600-700 bilion a year on warfare and intelligence operations.
That last sentence of yours rubs me kinda the wrong way; that is a dangerious premise that could set us back ~30 years when the cold war and the arms race was well and alive, but this time we'd have robots and AI
China is currently heavily funding genetically engineering geniuses and AI. The US can either wake up or sit around and wait to be subjugated via an autonomous drone swarm developed by 250IQ Chinese scientists
I... hope this is sarcasm?
Do we really want to test a theory that we can have a repeat of the 1930s when the democracies fell far behind an autocratic regime in the arms race, and again the autocratic regimes will not win? Democracies are in retreat around the world, and I only hope we wake up before it is too late.
The military-industrial complex may have become far bigger and perhaps in some ways a burden, but the world is a dangerous place and becoming more so. In my view, there is a perfectly valid argument that working with the military is the right thing to do.
At the same time if individuals have pacifist leanings and do not want to work for the military, i would hope corporations respect that.
The military-industrial complex may have become far bigger and perhaps in some ways a burden, but the world is a dangerous place and becoming more so. In my view, there is a perfectly valid argument that working with the military is the right thing to do.
At the same time if individuals have pacifist leanings and do not want to work for the military, i would hope corporations respect that.
"the world is a dangerous place and becoming more so."
Are you basing this statement on a general feeling or on a specific data-based metric? The military industrial complex greatly benefits from this common sentiment, but by most all quantitative measurements the world continues growing slowly safer, average lifespans increase, etc. While years-long aberrations exist (e.g. civil wars), the overall trend is very clearly antithetical to your statement.
Are you basing this statement on a general feeling or on a specific data-based metric? The military industrial complex greatly benefits from this common sentiment, but by most all quantitative measurements the world continues growing slowly safer, average lifespans increase, etc. While years-long aberrations exist (e.g. civil wars), the overall trend is very clearly antithetical to your statement.
There’s a balance to strike between the fear monger if news cycle and the Steven Pinker-esque wave of progress.
As Pinker notes, progress is not monotonicly increasing. While it is true that things have gotten better on average across the world, we should be wary of those who do not champion enlightenment ideals, particularly in autocratic China with the apparently life term of Xi Jinpeng. We should be wary that those without our interests at heart don’t overtake us.
As Pinker notes, progress is not monotonicly increasing. While it is true that things have gotten better on average across the world, we should be wary of those who do not champion enlightenment ideals, particularly in autocratic China with the apparently life term of Xi Jinpeng. We should be wary that those without our interests at heart don’t overtake us.
> Democracies are in retreat around the world, and I only hope we wake up before it is too late.
What are you advocating? Arming governments with autonomous killer drones in order to "protect democracy"? Because the world is a "dangerous place"? I don't even...
What are you advocating? Arming governments with autonomous killer drones in order to "protect democracy"? Because the world is a "dangerous place"? I don't even...
Well "governments" already have nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, drones and what have you. It's not some new concept. You can take it as given that regimes you will never want to live under will be putting their best people in using AI for military purposes.
It's dangerous to imagine one is sitting on some moral high ground by refusing to work for the military. We all owe our freedom to previous generations of scientists and engineers who worked for the military, sometimes inspite of strong ethical concerns.
It's dangerous to imagine one is sitting on some moral high ground by refusing to work for the military. We all owe our freedom to previous generations of scientists and engineers who worked for the military, sometimes inspite of strong ethical concerns.
If we already have nukes, why would we need anything else?
Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation.
The only use for the other types of weapons is to participate in some other civil war in another country that we shouldn't be in.
So no, I don't care if we "fall behind" because we still have nukes and those are enough to protect us in the conflicts that matter.
Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation.
The only use for the other types of weapons is to participate in some other civil war in another country that we shouldn't be in.
So no, I don't care if we "fall behind" because we still have nukes and those are enough to protect us in the conflicts that matter.
Nukes are an instrument of last resort, but you don't want to get to the point where that is your only option. And it is possible that technical advances in missile defence may blunt this advantage.
Being able to prevent friendly (and even neutral) countries from being bullied or going over to the dark side is also important because ultimately the best defence against rising autocratic forces is to ensure a broad alliance of friendly, democratic countries who are secure against interference by unfriendly regimes.
If a country like the USA can have its elections manipulated, how vulnerable might smaller democracies be?
Being able to prevent friendly (and even neutral) countries from being bullied or going over to the dark side is also important because ultimately the best defence against rising autocratic forces is to ensure a broad alliance of friendly, democratic countries who are secure against interference by unfriendly regimes.
If a country like the USA can have its elections manipulated, how vulnerable might smaller democracies be?
> If a country like the USA can have its elections manipulated, how vulnerable might smaller democracies be?
The CIA could most certainly help you answer that quite quantitatively.
The CIA could most certainly help you answer that quite quantitatively.
> If a country like the USA can have its elections manipulated, how vulnerable might smaller democracies be?
This has to be a joke, right? The USA has been responsible for undermining democracy all over the world more than any other country.
This is a just a partial list that we are aware of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
It is also implicated (though not directly proved), that USA was responsible for Arab spring.
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-USA-behind-the-Arab-Spring-upr...
This has to be a joke, right? The USA has been responsible for undermining democracy all over the world more than any other country.
This is a just a partial list that we are aware of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
It is also implicated (though not directly proved), that USA was responsible for Arab spring.
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-USA-behind-the-Arab-Spring-upr...
> Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation.
So, in the universe you are writing from, the Kargil War would have been an impossibility?
So, in the universe you are writing from, the Kargil War would have been an impossibility?
India and Pakistan aren't really powerful nations in the nuclear sense that the US and Russia are. I assume the person you are replying means powerful nation as "nation with a lot of nukes", which is pretty much only the US and Russia.
US Nukes: 7300
Russia Nukes: 8000
India Nukes: 90-100
Pakistan nukes: 100-120
Everyone except the US and Russia nukes: ~1100
(source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/nine-nations-have-n...)
US Nukes: 7300
Russia Nukes: 8000
India Nukes: 90-100
Pakistan nukes: 100-120
Everyone except the US and Russia nukes: ~1100
(source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/nine-nations-have-n...)
Even if you restrict it to the US and USSR (and later Russia) there have been direct armed conflict, including both being on opposing sides in war (notably, but not exclusively, both Korea and Vietnam during the Soviet period, but also extending into the current war in Syria), though there have been political cover done to limit risk of escalation (e.g., Soviet Air Force flying NK-badged fighters and, initially, prohibiting use of Russian over the radio in Korea; Russian forces on the ground fighting, sometimes directly against US forces, being the “Wagner PMC”—a GRU-backed notionally-private group.) op
The US and USSR/Russia did fight a good number of proxy wars throughout the cold war and beyond but those are distinctly different than the kind of all out war I think the original poster was referring to.
There's a reason they were all proxy wars and they never escalated into direct conflict on the scale of WWII (or beyond), and that reason is nuclear deterrence.
There's a reason they were all proxy wars and they never escalated into direct conflict on the scale of WWII (or beyond), and that reason is nuclear deterrence.
> The US and USSR/Russia did fight a good number of proxy wars throughout the cold war and beyond but those are distinctly different than the kind of all out war I think the original poster was referring to.
But they did fight them, including direct conflict with eachother. Which answers the upthread comment “If you have nuclear, why do you need anything else?” which was supported with the claim “Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation.”
Nukes don't prevent “any war” from happening between powerful nations, though they do seem to have some utility in restricting the escalation of such conflicts.
(Now, you could argue that unilateral conventional disarmament would leave no choice but to escalate to nuclear war, which would improve deterrence and prevent even small scale conventional, politically-covered attacks, but that argument would be highly speculative.)
Nukes don't prevent “any war” from happening between powerful nations, though they do seem to have some utility in restricting the escalation of such conflicts.
(Now, you could argue that unilateral conventional disarmament would leave no choice but to escalate to nuclear war, which would improve deterrence and prevent even small scale conventional, politically-covered attacks, but that argument would be highly speculative.)
> India and Pakistan aren't really powerful nations in the nuclear sense that the US and Russia are.
100 nukes is powerful enough.
100 nukes is powerful enough.
Considering that democracy means people choosing their government, the power would need to be in the hands of the people, not the government, to protect democracy. What will the population do if the government goes rogue and imposes autocracy?
Some might say this is the purpose of the second amendment.
Some might say this is the purpose of the second amendment.
> Considering that democracy means people choosing their government
Well no, that's just one aspect of democracy that can't even remotely serve as a sufficient condition for democracy.
Well no, that's just one aspect of democracy that can't even remotely serve as a sufficient condition for democracy.
If we refuse to develop the technology, our enemies will anyway. Imagine a world where Nazi Germany developed nuclear weapons.
Ah yes, the "I have to do evil things because if I didn't, someone else would" argument...
Just think about what you wrote: "our enemies". Why do you (whichever country you are from) have enemies in the first place? What did your country do to make others hate it? A lot of people seem to focus on how to defend against "those who hate us" without spending a passing thought on the why of it.
Solving "why" also solves the "how", but those who profit from conflict have no interest in the former, as their livelihood depends on the latter.
Just think about what you wrote: "our enemies". Why do you (whichever country you are from) have enemies in the first place? What did your country do to make others hate it? A lot of people seem to focus on how to defend against "those who hate us" without spending a passing thought on the why of it.
Solving "why" also solves the "how", but those who profit from conflict have no interest in the former, as their livelihood depends on the latter.
War is not primarily about hatred. It's about irreconcilable differences, where the calculated risk and cost of war is preferred to losing some perceived national interest. Your sweet sentiment that we should all just act nicely and get along does not survive serious contemplation of the incentive structures that drive nations (or individuals, for that matter), or the thousands of years of human history marked by pervasive warfare.
Philosophically, it is strange to make agreeableness the standard for the behavior of nations. Being good is much more than being nice, and any thoughtful conception of moral goodness will sometimes require actions that upset others.
And finally, you seem to be assuming that my country is the only possible bad actor. But of course, that’s not true. My country could do everything “right”, only for someone else to start a war.
>Why do you (whichever country you are from) have enemies in the first place? What did your country do to make others hate it? A lot of people seem to focus on how to defend against "those who hate us" without spending a passing thought on the why of it.
Are you really arguing that it's Poland's fault for having a country in the same place that Hitler wanted lebensraum?
Philosophically, it is strange to make agreeableness the standard for the behavior of nations. Being good is much more than being nice, and any thoughtful conception of moral goodness will sometimes require actions that upset others.
And finally, you seem to be assuming that my country is the only possible bad actor. But of course, that’s not true. My country could do everything “right”, only for someone else to start a war.
>Why do you (whichever country you are from) have enemies in the first place? What did your country do to make others hate it? A lot of people seem to focus on how to defend against "those who hate us" without spending a passing thought on the why of it.
Are you really arguing that it's Poland's fault for having a country in the same place that Hitler wanted lebensraum?
> What did your country do to make others hate it?
You have a very simplistic view of geopolitics.
What did Poland do to Germany in 1939 to make Germany hate it? What did the Jews do to the Nazis to make them hate them so much?
Wars get started for all kinds of reasons, some predictable, others not. It's a simple matter of survival to equip yourself as best you can to defend yourself.
You have a very simplistic view of geopolitics.
What did Poland do to Germany in 1939 to make Germany hate it? What did the Jews do to the Nazis to make them hate them so much?
Wars get started for all kinds of reasons, some predictable, others not. It's a simple matter of survival to equip yourself as best you can to defend yourself.
I like your idealism. But there's often not a why. And if there is, it's not necessarily 'what they did' but rather 'what they have', like water or land or whatever.
> Democracies are in retreat around the world
Nope. Not even in the slightest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waves_of_democracy.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Waves_of_...
Nope. Not even in the slightest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waves_of_democracy.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Waves_of_...
The graph you are linking to ends in 1998, when Bill Clinton was in power, the US was the sole superpower, the EU was increasing in size, China's GDP was a tenth of what it is now, and i think Boris Yeltsin was running Russia, and most people had not heard of Osama bin laden. I think it is safe to say the world is different now.
Look at the backsliding in Turkey, Phillipines, Burma, Venezuela, Egypt. Look at the regimes which have come to power in Hungary, Poland. And of course Russia itself. China, which at one time seemed to be heading for more moderation has taken a sharply authoritarian turn. I would argue just in the last five years things have turned sharply for the worse.
Look at the backsliding in Turkey, Phillipines, Burma, Venezuela, Egypt. Look at the regimes which have come to power in Hungary, Poland. And of course Russia itself. China, which at one time seemed to be heading for more moderation has taken a sharply authoritarian turn. I would argue just in the last five years things have turned sharply for the worse.
In 2016, the count of >= 8 was 70.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series
> regimes which have come to power in Hungary, Poland.
There's no regime in Poland.
There's no regime in Poland.
We can all look at the data. The graph I linked ends in 2003 (like indicated in the graph itself), and jpollock posted the value for 2016, which is 70, so even higher than 2003. In other words, you are telling incorrect things and when called out, instead of giving in to reality, you are doubling down telling even more incorrect things. Not good. And it's quite saddening that in this forum dedicated to rational discourse, your flawed reasoning is being rewarded with so much attention, currently sitting at fifth place among all root comments.
Sorry for being out of the loop - it was night time in India, and i had gone to sleep.
You are right that the title says 2003 - i looked at the scale below which ended at 1998. I was not so much doubling down, but rather talking of a slightly different point that the ones you and jpollock were making. When I said democracies were in retreat, there are two or three different phenomena.
First - the western democracies seem to be internally weaker, and unable to arrive at consensus even for important national priorities. This may be because of the rise of social media echo chambers. In Europe there is a growth of right-wing parties in all countries, even Germany. As an Indian this worries me, because for all their warts, the liberal democracies of US and the European countries are the model of governance I would like to have succeed across the world.
Second - there seems to be no answer to the salami-slicing tactics of the autocratic regimes in Africa and Asia. You have to see the bullying of countries like Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Phillipines, even Vietnam and wonder. As the western democracies look to be in retreat, countries are surrendering their interests to the regional bullies. This will ultimately hurt all democracies in the long run.
Thirdly - there is the increasingly blatant and surprisingly successful interference in open societies from the closed ones. The US election is only the most advertised one. But similar interference has happened in Australia, in UK, in various part of Europe. There are at last signs of response to this - Australia has passed a law against foreign interference, and the Skripal episode has led to (some) concerted effort. But the response still seems much weaker than the provocation.
In summary, by "retreat of democracies" my focus was on their will and ability to stand up to autocratic forces, not a retreat of democracy itself (which i think is what jpollock and your responses were about). That may be why we were talking at cross purposes. I fervently wish i am wrong - and I hope i never try to avoid rational discourse.
You are right that the title says 2003 - i looked at the scale below which ended at 1998. I was not so much doubling down, but rather talking of a slightly different point that the ones you and jpollock were making. When I said democracies were in retreat, there are two or three different phenomena.
First - the western democracies seem to be internally weaker, and unable to arrive at consensus even for important national priorities. This may be because of the rise of social media echo chambers. In Europe there is a growth of right-wing parties in all countries, even Germany. As an Indian this worries me, because for all their warts, the liberal democracies of US and the European countries are the model of governance I would like to have succeed across the world.
Second - there seems to be no answer to the salami-slicing tactics of the autocratic regimes in Africa and Asia. You have to see the bullying of countries like Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Phillipines, even Vietnam and wonder. As the western democracies look to be in retreat, countries are surrendering their interests to the regional bullies. This will ultimately hurt all democracies in the long run.
Thirdly - there is the increasingly blatant and surprisingly successful interference in open societies from the closed ones. The US election is only the most advertised one. But similar interference has happened in Australia, in UK, in various part of Europe. There are at last signs of response to this - Australia has passed a law against foreign interference, and the Skripal episode has led to (some) concerted effort. But the response still seems much weaker than the provocation.
In summary, by "retreat of democracies" my focus was on their will and ability to stand up to autocratic forces, not a retreat of democracy itself (which i think is what jpollock and your responses were about). That may be why we were talking at cross purposes. I fervently wish i am wrong - and I hope i never try to avoid rational discourse.
The world is currently the least dangerous it's ever been in history, and all data and all trends point that it will be even less dangerous in the future. Sorry but you're simply wrong.
Different metrics. I think you're referring to crime rates and health, but OP is referring to political instability.
I'm referring to all data, including political stability. You're less likely to find yourself in a war than ever before.
The source of my claims is the book by Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature.
The source of my claims is the book by Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Not sure about that. Wasn't the Doomsday Clock just moved back to an all-time dangerous spot?
The doomsday clock is a human institution of scientists, though hardly scientific. They see it as their duty to raise alarms. But ask yourself- are we really closer to civilization ending Doomsday than at the height of the Cold War?
I don't see why not. Seems nuclear weapons and war are still a thing. So much so they moved the hands of the Doomsday clock again to these heights.
The problem with this argument is that Pinker could have written the same book in 1930.
Thats wrong, which you'd know if you actually read it.
I have to disagree with you, all his arguments held back then, there was just less data. He also concedes that the statistical modeling relies on violence afflicting a proportion of the population, rather than absolute numbers - all well and good but an important distinction. Also your point is entirely fallacious anyway in the context of this thread. His book highlights a trend which cannot be disentangled from the historical context which gave rise to it.
I don't understand what you mean by "all his arguments held back then" when a significant portion of the book explicitly shows and discusses data regarding the number of wars fought during 1800 and before, compared to 1900 and early 2000. And the fact that another significant portion of the book deals with data about how much more likely a person is to die from violence in general during that period compared to the more recent period. I'm still convinced you have not read the book, and I suspect that is why your counterargument to it resembles a strawman.
All the trends are longer term, the theory about lessening violence first emerged in the 1700s[1]. WW2 doesn't change Pinker's conclusions, by his own admission. So, it is reasonable to conclude this book could have been written in 1930, and would be no less correct than it is now.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
> WW2 doesn't change Pinker's conclusions, by his own admission.
His conclusion from the data is that wars between great powers become less frequent but more deadly. Please read the book you're critiquing.
His conclusion from the data is that wars between great powers become less frequent but more deadly. Please read the book you're critiquing.
I agree with the book. I'm critiquing your application of the concept.
This is sadly correct.
Pacifism isn't viable when some of the biggest countries in the world are run by totalitarian regimes. Objections to participating in the military industrial complex are a luxury of countries verging on global irrelevance. The proclivities of the West to engage in self-flagellation over these issues are well known to and exploited by less liberal regimes. If only it were not so, but I don't know what the alternative is, just as the physicists in the Manhattan project saw no alternative.
Pacifism isn't viable when some of the biggest countries in the world are run by totalitarian regimes. Objections to participating in the military industrial complex are a luxury of countries verging on global irrelevance. The proclivities of the West to engage in self-flagellation over these issues are well known to and exploited by less liberal regimes. If only it were not so, but I don't know what the alternative is, just as the physicists in the Manhattan project saw no alternative.
It's not clear to me that America is not on the path that Germany was headed down in the early 30s.
Democracies are in retreat because of corruption and failings of its leaders, people are losing faith in the democratic process. Not because their militaries aren't powerful enough.
I heard an interesting view on this. Engineers build technologies like TensorFlow and demos of object recognition, which have obvious applications in drone combat (just stuff your model into the missile targeting system). Yet then when this tech is used for this purpose they're shocked, shocked -- and as long as they're not specifically building the missile targeting systems themselves they feel like their hands are clean?
I'm not even sure what the consequence of this argument is; pretty much anything you build can indirectly contribute to the military industrial complex, even something innocuous like dev infra. But I also don't think that weak "everything is equivalent" argument means you're suddenly absolved of responsibility. One thing I am pretty sure of is that it must feel awful to waste your short time on earth on building tools specifically for killing.
I'm not even sure what the consequence of this argument is; pretty much anything you build can indirectly contribute to the military industrial complex, even something innocuous like dev infra. But I also don't think that weak "everything is equivalent" argument means you're suddenly absolved of responsibility. One thing I am pretty sure of is that it must feel awful to waste your short time on earth on building tools specifically for killing.
I would suggest that there is a very large difference between designing FOSS software, such as Tensorflow, that can be used for a multitude of applications, and developing for a company or project that is explicitly funded by military purposes. Advancing technology that has secondary applications in warfare is very different from focusing on the military aspect, and is not complicity.
It's nothing more than an attempt for Silicon Valley to pretend that they're a bastion of pure innovation, where all advancements are only for good. It's naive and extremely holier-than-thou.
Well, that's one extreme.
The other extreme is that some folks actually have a conscience.
Reality is probably on a continuum in between.
The other extreme is that some folks actually have a conscience.
Reality is probably on a continuum in between.
The other extreme is that some folks actually have a conscience
Those people are not working in AdTech.
Those people are not working in AdTech.
You want to have that conversation with them? Because some of them are right here. In fact some of them just got shot at yesterday.
Is it hyperbole, or do you honestly feel that trying to connect users with products they might like is inherently unconscionable?
Is it hyperbole, or do you honestly feel that trying to connect users with products they might like is inherently unconscionable?
> trying to connect users with products they might like
It is delusional to suggest that this is the goal of ad-tech. The only people thinking about the users and the products are the creative teams that make the ads themselves.
Ad-tech, on the other hand, engages in dragnet data mining operations that serve the creative/design teams at ad agencies. The way the ad-tech industry has decided to go about things absolutely is inherently unconscionable. The unrestrained nonsense they've unleashed on the web over the past two decades have resulted in leaving nearly all internet users vulnerable to malicious code, privacy loss, and other horrible things.
> some of them just got shot at yesterday
Nice appeal to emotion there. But how do you know what the people at YouTube HQ did for a living? Do you have insider information? By all means, don't hold back.
It is delusional to suggest that this is the goal of ad-tech. The only people thinking about the users and the products are the creative teams that make the ads themselves.
Ad-tech, on the other hand, engages in dragnet data mining operations that serve the creative/design teams at ad agencies. The way the ad-tech industry has decided to go about things absolutely is inherently unconscionable. The unrestrained nonsense they've unleashed on the web over the past two decades have resulted in leaving nearly all internet users vulnerable to malicious code, privacy loss, and other horrible things.
> some of them just got shot at yesterday
Nice appeal to emotion there. But how do you know what the people at YouTube HQ did for a living? Do you have insider information? By all means, don't hold back.
Do you know anyone who works on ad-tech?
Or are you making uninformed hyperbolic statements?
> The unrestrained nonsense they've unleashed on the web over the past two decades
I feel sometimes like I'm the only one who remembers how awful, insulting, and dangerous ads were before.
> But how do you know what the people at YouTube HQ did for a living? Do you have insider information? By all means, don't hold back.
I asked, "You want to have that conversation with them?"
I'll ask you the same thing.
You know some of them are here.
They're your peers.
But feel free to demonize them without talking to them.
Or are you making uninformed hyperbolic statements?
> The unrestrained nonsense they've unleashed on the web over the past two decades
I feel sometimes like I'm the only one who remembers how awful, insulting, and dangerous ads were before.
> But how do you know what the people at YouTube HQ did for a living? Do you have insider information? By all means, don't hold back.
I asked, "You want to have that conversation with them?"
I'll ask you the same thing.
You know some of them are here.
They're your peers.
But feel free to demonize them without talking to them.
I do know people who work in ad-tech. However, I don't see why that should matter in the least. Who I know in the ad-tech industry is not pertinent to my argument.
> how awful, insulting, and dangerous ads were before
You seem to be missing the point. Yes, advertisements are awful, insulting to our intelligence, and dangerous psychologically. But that has nothing to do with ad-tech. Your conflation of advertisement production with ad-tech is especially curious, considering your strangely dogmatic defense of this reprehensible industry.
It's even more curious that you didn't reference any of the things I actually brought up in my post about the ad-tech industry. The content of an advertisement is not nearly as important as the means by which people are consuming the content. This is a fundamental premise of Marshall McLuhan, on whose ideas much of the advertising industry has operated for decades now. ("The medium is the message.") The real problem with ad-tech is not the advertising content that it helps propagate, but rather the techniques employed by ad-tech to achieve its goals. Why don't you respond to those problems I raised, rather than ones that are both wholly irrelevant to the discussion and entirely absent from my comment? Ad-tech is what introduced malicious code, unethical privacy breaches, and absurdly non-scientific measurement practices to the advertisement industry as a whole. The ads distributed on yesterday's television and radio broadcasts, and on yesteryear's magazines and newspapers, could never have come close to the destruction today's internet ads achieve - because those older media were not capable of being leveraged as irresponsibly as ad-tech leverages the world wide web.
> how awful, insulting, and dangerous ads were before
You seem to be missing the point. Yes, advertisements are awful, insulting to our intelligence, and dangerous psychologically. But that has nothing to do with ad-tech. Your conflation of advertisement production with ad-tech is especially curious, considering your strangely dogmatic defense of this reprehensible industry.
It's even more curious that you didn't reference any of the things I actually brought up in my post about the ad-tech industry. The content of an advertisement is not nearly as important as the means by which people are consuming the content. This is a fundamental premise of Marshall McLuhan, on whose ideas much of the advertising industry has operated for decades now. ("The medium is the message.") The real problem with ad-tech is not the advertising content that it helps propagate, but rather the techniques employed by ad-tech to achieve its goals. Why don't you respond to those problems I raised, rather than ones that are both wholly irrelevant to the discussion and entirely absent from my comment? Ad-tech is what introduced malicious code, unethical privacy breaches, and absurdly non-scientific measurement practices to the advertisement industry as a whole. The ads distributed on yesterday's television and radio broadcasts, and on yesteryear's magazines and newspapers, could never have come close to the destruction today's internet ads achieve - because those older media were not capable of being leveraged as irresponsibly as ad-tech leverages the world wide web.
> However, I don't see why that should matter in the least. Who I know in the ad-tech industry is not pertinent to my argument.
Of course it should. You denied any users X exist, (Ad-Tech who think about the users.) I was hoping to demonstrate that your sample size of X that you know well enough to judge them so, is too small to be meaningful. I say that because I know many people in Ad-Tech, and almost all of them care very much about users. Since our conclusions are different, I can conclude our samples are different populations, or you're speaking in hyperbole.
You said:
> The only people thinking about the users and the products are the creative teams that make the ads themselves. ... is inherently unconscionable.
If you know people in Ad-Tech, and you tell them, "You don't care about users, and your business is inherently unconscionable" I'd like to hear what responses you get. Genuinely. Would they agree with you? Or, more likely would they say something like, "At my place, even when I think about the user, it doesn't matter much," which seems much more likely the kind of human response you'd get.
> It's even more curious
You opened with bald-faced hyperbole. I'm trying to get you to admit that your most outrageous claims are based on nothing but lies. Once I do that, maybe I'll dive into the rest of what you said.
My concession to you is that there are awful ways to do ads - exploitative, manipulative, bad for the user. And there are ways to do ads that are not those things. You claim there's no difference - it's all homogeneously bad. That's hyperbole or delusion.
Moreover, none of it is particularly helpful. It's just spite. You don't have any actionable proposals for making the world a better place. You're just making "dead lawyer" jokes.
And I did respond directly, reminding you that ads used to be far worse. You haven't responded to that at all.
Of course it should. You denied any users X exist, (Ad-Tech who think about the users.) I was hoping to demonstrate that your sample size of X that you know well enough to judge them so, is too small to be meaningful. I say that because I know many people in Ad-Tech, and almost all of them care very much about users. Since our conclusions are different, I can conclude our samples are different populations, or you're speaking in hyperbole.
You said:
> The only people thinking about the users and the products are the creative teams that make the ads themselves. ... is inherently unconscionable.
If you know people in Ad-Tech, and you tell them, "You don't care about users, and your business is inherently unconscionable" I'd like to hear what responses you get. Genuinely. Would they agree with you? Or, more likely would they say something like, "At my place, even when I think about the user, it doesn't matter much," which seems much more likely the kind of human response you'd get.
> It's even more curious
You opened with bald-faced hyperbole. I'm trying to get you to admit that your most outrageous claims are based on nothing but lies. Once I do that, maybe I'll dive into the rest of what you said.
My concession to you is that there are awful ways to do ads - exploitative, manipulative, bad for the user. And there are ways to do ads that are not those things. You claim there's no difference - it's all homogeneously bad. That's hyperbole or delusion.
Moreover, none of it is particularly helpful. It's just spite. You don't have any actionable proposals for making the world a better place. You're just making "dead lawyer" jokes.
And I did respond directly, reminding you that ads used to be far worse. You haven't responded to that at all.
As I said yesterday, if someone needs something, they’ll just go out and buy it. Ads are fundamentally about using psychological tricks to make people buy things they don’t need, or even want once the manipulation has worn off
Yea, but sometimes I don't know about a product.
For example, I tried to find a pair of quality underwear that did not have some guys name above the crotch for years. I heard mention of me undies on a podcast, checked it out, and am now a happy customer. ( this is not a paid post )
For example, I tried to find a pair of quality underwear that did not have some guys name above the crotch for years. I heard mention of me undies on a podcast, checked it out, and am now a happy customer. ( this is not a paid post )
Yes, it's inherently tasteless and makes the world a worse place. No-one needs or wants the "help" of advertisers providing suggestions about what products they might want to buy.
Even when you're searching for that product?
Out of morbid curiosity, do you get that ads fund most of the internet?
Out of morbid curiosity, do you get that ads fund most of the internet?
Yes, even when searching. Of course, impartial help with the search could be beneficial (by definition of "help"). But advertising is by definition not impartial. I do not want my search results to be influenced by those who have a financial incentive to bias my search outcome. That's obvious -- surely you don't either?
> Out of morbid curiosity, do you get that ads fund most of the internet?
Yes. But that does not mean that we want or need advertising, or that it is not tasteless. It might mean that we cannot conceive of or achieve an alternative version of the world without advertising and with the internet.
More generally, I'd say it's important to make a clear distinction between statements of principle, and statements of pragmatic policy.
> Out of morbid curiosity, do you get that ads fund most of the internet?
Yes. But that does not mean that we want or need advertising, or that it is not tasteless. It might mean that we cannot conceive of or achieve an alternative version of the world without advertising and with the internet.
More generally, I'd say it's important to make a clear distinction between statements of principle, and statements of pragmatic policy.
Capitalism is tasteless, then, right?
As a matter of principle, if you have something and don't need it, and someone else needs it, you should give it to them, right?
I'm just trying to understand your principle and where the boundaries of it are.
As a matter of principle, if you have something and don't need it, and someone else needs it, you should give it to them, right?
I'm just trying to understand your principle and where the boundaries of it are.
> Capitalism is tasteless, then, right?
Oh, I don't think I'm well-informed enough to answer that question properly. Let's suppose by "capitalism" you meant allowing market forces to operate freely. No, I wouldn't say that's entirely tasteless, but yes it has tasteless aspects.
And a principle one is advertising, i.e. standing up and saying "Hey, I suggest you buy this, and here's why" when
(a) you have a financial motivation to encourage the sale
(b) quite obviously, that motivation corrupts your role as the recommender
(c) despite being educated people you make no acknowledgement of that corruption.
Ideally, the best way for consumers to choose between competing products would be for them to read peer-reviewed scientific literature comparing the merits of the products and their suitability for the intended use. That again is basically definitional -- that's what science means.
Now, do you think science should be conducted by people with a financial interest in the conclusions of each paper? No, you don't. And that's why you shouldn't have a hard time accepting that advertising is inherently undesirable.
> As a matter of principle, if you have something and don't need it, and someone else needs it, you should give it to them, right?
Yes.
> I'm just trying to understand your principle and where the boundaries of it are
Sure, happy to continue the discussion.
Oh, I don't think I'm well-informed enough to answer that question properly. Let's suppose by "capitalism" you meant allowing market forces to operate freely. No, I wouldn't say that's entirely tasteless, but yes it has tasteless aspects.
And a principle one is advertising, i.e. standing up and saying "Hey, I suggest you buy this, and here's why" when
(a) you have a financial motivation to encourage the sale
(b) quite obviously, that motivation corrupts your role as the recommender
(c) despite being educated people you make no acknowledgement of that corruption.
Ideally, the best way for consumers to choose between competing products would be for them to read peer-reviewed scientific literature comparing the merits of the products and their suitability for the intended use. That again is basically definitional -- that's what science means.
Now, do you think science should be conducted by people with a financial interest in the conclusions of each paper? No, you don't. And that's why you shouldn't have a hard time accepting that advertising is inherently undesirable.
> As a matter of principle, if you have something and don't need it, and someone else needs it, you should give it to them, right?
Yes.
> I'm just trying to understand your principle and where the boundaries of it are
Sure, happy to continue the discussion.
>> As a matter of principle, if you have something and don't need it, and someone else needs it, you should give it to them, right?
> Yes.
So, is property tasteless?
Why are people trying to sell something? Shouldn't they just give it to me?
And then scientists should determine which products should be made.
And scientists should determine who is the best at making those goods and services.
And scientists should decide who doesn't deserve to live or reproduce.
... So... I purposely tried to go too far. At which point do you think I went too far?
> Yes.
So, is property tasteless?
Why are people trying to sell something? Shouldn't they just give it to me?
And then scientists should determine which products should be made.
And scientists should determine who is the best at making those goods and services.
And scientists should decide who doesn't deserve to live or reproduce.
... So... I purposely tried to go too far. At which point do you think I went too far?
> So, is property tasteless?
Owning something which you do not make use of and denying access to others who would make good use of it is not a good thing to do.
> Why are people trying to sell something? Shouldn't they just give it to me?
I'm not arguing against the whole of free market capitalism, just advertising. We can still have a free market without advertising. A bit like how we can and do have democracies while severely restricting political campaign funding.
> And then scientists should determine which products should be made.
> And scientists should determine who is the best at making those goods and services.
> And scientists should decide who doesn't deserve to live or reproduce.
Scientists provide information. They do not enforce anything; they are not an executive branch of government.
"Science" is the word we use for the process of rationally answering questions about the universe. That includes comparing products. And comparing who is best at making goods and services.
If it were the case that there were a subset of people who didn't "deserve" to live or reproduce (for some definition of "deserve") then yes, we would want scientists to be involved in identifying that subset of people. The obvious example is criminal punishment. The USA and other countries decide that some people no longer deserve to live. (Other societies in history have sterilized people). Yes, of course we would want those decisions to be based on science -- science as the provider of information and as the process for arriving at conclusions from data; the legal system and government to actually execute and enforce things.
> ... So... I purposely tried to go too far. At which point do you think I went too far?
You didn't go too far. I think you confused two things: (1) scientists making information available to society, and (2) some group of people enforcing a policy.
Owning something which you do not make use of and denying access to others who would make good use of it is not a good thing to do.
> Why are people trying to sell something? Shouldn't they just give it to me?
I'm not arguing against the whole of free market capitalism, just advertising. We can still have a free market without advertising. A bit like how we can and do have democracies while severely restricting political campaign funding.
> And then scientists should determine which products should be made.
> And scientists should determine who is the best at making those goods and services.
> And scientists should decide who doesn't deserve to live or reproduce.
Scientists provide information. They do not enforce anything; they are not an executive branch of government.
"Science" is the word we use for the process of rationally answering questions about the universe. That includes comparing products. And comparing who is best at making goods and services.
If it were the case that there were a subset of people who didn't "deserve" to live or reproduce (for some definition of "deserve") then yes, we would want scientists to be involved in identifying that subset of people. The obvious example is criminal punishment. The USA and other countries decide that some people no longer deserve to live. (Other societies in history have sterilized people). Yes, of course we would want those decisions to be based on science -- science as the provider of information and as the process for arriving at conclusions from data; the legal system and government to actually execute and enforce things.
> ... So... I purposely tried to go too far. At which point do you think I went too far?
You didn't go too far. I think you confused two things: (1) scientists making information available to society, and (2) some group of people enforcing a policy.
lol
I'm a part of it. And agree. The naivete can be astounding.
As an engineer I have serious moral qualms about furthering the goals of any military. Contributing means being complicit.
The fact that the military funds research doesn't change that.
The fact that the military funds research doesn't change that.
As an engineer I have serious moral qualms about not furthering the goals of our military.
After all, I would not be here, and my job would not exist, and the freedom I have to do this work would not exist, if soldiers like my grandfather hadn't stepped up to Hitler and Stalin and Mao and say "No, you're wrong, and we're willing to use violence to protect our way of life". Just my 2c but I definitely respect the ultimate sacrifice that my grandparents generation gave to create this quite nifty Liberty bubble that these few generations get to play in.
After all, I would not be here, and my job would not exist, and the freedom I have to do this work would not exist, if soldiers like my grandfather hadn't stepped up to Hitler and Stalin and Mao and say "No, you're wrong, and we're willing to use violence to protect our way of life". Just my 2c but I definitely respect the ultimate sacrifice that my grandparents generation gave to create this quite nifty Liberty bubble that these few generations get to play in.
They didn't step up to Stalin and Mao. Hitler was because of alliance with Britain and the Japanese attack, not because of how awful the Nazis regime was. The US for the most part didn't want to get dragged back into another European conflict. Hitler was bad, yes. But what happened in Germany was rooted in the outcome of WW1, which was rooted in all the alliances and what not proceeding it, which was rooting in yet prior conflicts. A lot of which had to do with the colonial powers fighting over how to divide up the world, or because of religious differences.
A pacifist might say Hitler, Stalin and Mao are just symptoms of the deeper problem, which is the willingness of human beings to engage in violent conflicts just because somebody tells them to.
A pacifist might say Hitler, Stalin and Mao are just symptoms of the deeper problem, which is the willingness of human beings to engage in violent conflicts just because somebody tells them to.
It's amazing the degree to which people are ignorant of what you've said here and imagine the US was motivated by ideology.
The US was motivated by ideology.
Why was the US an ally of GB/France/etc and not Germany/Italy? Contrary to your belief, greed can be ideological -- striving for global free trade is an example of this.
Why was the US an ally of GB/France/etc and not Germany/Italy? Contrary to your belief, greed can be ideological -- striving for global free trade is an example of this.
I'll admit I was modifying what I would have said IRL for this medium. You are absolutely right: one of the most brilliant victories of so-called "neoliberal" capitalism is how it's utterly convinced people that it represents human nature. That it's not ideological. What I meant by my comment was that "saving the world from the evil of global Fascism" was a post-hoc rationalization, not what motivated America to join the war years after it had begun.
FYI: I said I know why my grandfather fought, NOT WHY his commander in chief ordered him to fight.
That's a big difference, and one you chose not to respect.
His CiC may not have agreed, but my grandfather told me, to my face, that he fought fascism and was proud to do so.
That's a big difference, and one you chose not to respect.
His CiC may not have agreed, but my grandfather told me, to my face, that he fought fascism and was proud to do so.
I'd like to be clear that I know and love that the soldiers and everyone else who fought fascism did so to defeat fascism: it's very possible that I wouldn't be commenting today had your grandfather not made that decision. That's not what i meant to imply here.
EDIT: To make clear what I meant, re: your comment: the state-building narrative the US has adopted substitutes the righteous struggle of people like your grandfather in order to avoid acknowledging, among many things, the reluctance to participate in world affairs and the frankly brazen pro-Nazi stances of many in the american public and the government at the time.
EDIT: To make clear what I meant, re: your comment: the state-building narrative the US has adopted substitutes the righteous struggle of people like your grandfather in order to avoid acknowledging, among many things, the reluctance to participate in world affairs and the frankly brazen pro-Nazi stances of many in the american public and the government at the time.
> The US was motivated by ideology.
Well, certainly, the Roosevelt Administration was, but they were (prior to Pearl Harbor) also forced to maintain an outward pretense of neutrality while backing the Allies, because a large part of the rest of the US was also motivated by ideology...to either be sympathetic to the Axis Powers (one large, well-bankrolled faction) or to be opposed to intervention (another large, well-bankrolled faction, that often worked together with the preceding one against any interventionist policy.)
Well, certainly, the Roosevelt Administration was, but they were (prior to Pearl Harbor) also forced to maintain an outward pretense of neutrality while backing the Allies, because a large part of the rest of the US was also motivated by ideology...to either be sympathetic to the Axis Powers (one large, well-bankrolled faction) or to be opposed to intervention (another large, well-bankrolled faction, that often worked together with the preceding one against any interventionist policy.)
Then why wasn't the US in the war from the beginning? Did it take 2 years to discover that Hitler was bad?
The US was always on the allied side, through funding and supplies. The whole reason the Lusitania was sunk was because the US was sending arms to support the Allied war effort, even if it wasn't officially declared. Even if it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that the US joined the war officially, there is little doubt what side Roosevelt and much of the American people wanted to win.
> The US was always on the allied side, through funding and supplies.
Businesses in the US were serving both sides of the conflict.
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
Businesses in the US were serving both sides of the conflict.
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
Holy cow do I feel bad for the people that grow up with education system of your country. Look up Lend Lease.
Lend-lease was enacted March 11, 1941. IBM was cataloguing religious and other minorities for the Nazis in the 30s. [1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust#cite_ref...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust#cite_ref...
The US in the early 20th century had a very strong non-interventionist policy, at least vis-a-vis Europe (Latin America was a different story). The general standpoint was "we don't want to get involved with whatever mess is going on in Europe." Note that this strain was so strong that one Congresswoman actually refused to vote for war even after Pearl Harbor.
However, by 1940, it was very clear that the US was going to get dragged in anyways, and it would serve the US interests first to start preparing for war before it starts (note that the draft was instituted over a year before Pearl Harbor). Moreover, the US was neutral only in name: various acts passed more or less saying that the US would give aid to anybody so long as they were British or French. (Originally, it was cash-and-carry, but when Britain exhausted its cash reserves, it became Lend-Lease instead).
However, by 1940, it was very clear that the US was going to get dragged in anyways, and it would serve the US interests first to start preparing for war before it starts (note that the draft was instituted over a year before Pearl Harbor). Moreover, the US was neutral only in name: various acts passed more or less saying that the US would give aid to anybody so long as they were British or French. (Originally, it was cash-and-carry, but when Britain exhausted its cash reserves, it became Lend-Lease instead).
A correction to your otherwise correct comment: Lend-Lease was extended to the Soviets as well (and perhaps equally if not much larger than to the Franco-British military).
Lend-lease was the last of the neutrality gimmicks, and was the first one that really applied to the Soviets--mere weeks before the US entered the war proper and lend-lease became the vehicle for general military and logistical aid to all Allies.
It took 2 years for a country that values personal freedoms and international free trade/security to decide that the Axis powers winning the war would be bad for both.
Also, the US formally joined the war in 1941, but were providing material support to the Allies and otherwise prepping before then.
Also, the US formally joined the war in 1941, but were providing material support to the Allies and otherwise prepping before then.
No one knew about the death camps until basically the end of the European stage of WWII.
> No one
The intelligence services knew. The general public didn't.
The intelligence services knew. The general public didn't.
Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around.
I didn't say the US did?
Well you asked why wasn't the US allied to Germany in the war. Asking that makes it sound like you weren't aware that Germany declared war on the US, because that's a pretty obvious reason for the US not to be allied to Germany.
The US was allied with the "Allies" before the US become formally involved in the war. They were already providing material aid to Britain/France before Pearl Harbor / war declared by Germany. I'm definitely not the one who is "unaware" of the key details in this discussion.
The US provided support to the side they ideologically agreed with -- it wasn't just a case of "Germany randomly declares war on the US".
The US provided support to the side they ideologically agreed with -- it wasn't just a case of "Germany randomly declares war on the US".
The US also provided support (lend-lease) to the USSR.
But they did tho. At least to Stalin. Had they not, all of Europe would now be Soviet Union. This is also why Japan was nuked — to ensure compliance, and create better leverage in negotiations. Otherwise the red army could just continue as far as it wished to go and take over the rest of Europe.
I would strongly argue that the motivation for nukeing Japan was not to give the Soviets an impression but to ensure that American troops didn't have to land on hostile beaches on the Japanese mainland. The decision was mainly made to save American lives by forcing a Japanese surrender
There's a depressingly large number of authors who say that, but the Japanese islands have little in the way of natural resources except farmland and a good climate for growing things.
The whole reason Japan started their program of military expansion in the first place was to guarantee access to natural resource, e.g., petroleum, needed by their industry.
By 1943 Japan was facing chronic shortages of petroleum products, rubber and other essential supplies because of interdiction by the US Navy's "Silent Service" (submarine force). And that was before Japan lost most of her navy, most of her large transport ships (by 1945 Japan was reduced to using mostly small wooden transport ships) the Phillipines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa (which while in Japanese hands could be used to operate aircraft to give Japanese shipping some protection from the US Navy).
It is unlikely that Japan could have done much more than feed itself after 1945.
The whole reason Japan started their program of military expansion in the first place was to guarantee access to natural resource, e.g., petroleum, needed by their industry.
By 1943 Japan was facing chronic shortages of petroleum products, rubber and other essential supplies because of interdiction by the US Navy's "Silent Service" (submarine force). And that was before Japan lost most of her navy, most of her large transport ships (by 1945 Japan was reduced to using mostly small wooden transport ships) the Phillipines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa (which while in Japanese hands could be used to operate aircraft to give Japanese shipping some protection from the US Navy).
It is unlikely that Japan could have done much more than feed itself after 1945.
The Emperor was weeks away from capitulating on his own, and Soviets were invading the place already. Nuking Japan was mostly to tell Stalin he can’t win. Japan capitulating sooner was a nice side effect.
Oh, the US didn't meet the USSR in Berlin, stop the westward movement of the Soviet advance, saving dozens of countries from communism?
My bad, I totally forgot that the Cold War never happened and that the soldiers of WW2 didn't form a hard border in Berlin that they were not friendly over.
My bad, I totally forgot that the Cold War never happened and that the soldiers of WW2 didn't form a hard border in Berlin that they were not friendly over.
> the US didn't meet the USSR in Berlin
As far as I know, no? The US was quite far from Berlin by the end of the war, and did not engage the USSR in battle for territorial control of Germany.
> saving dozens of countries from communism?
Surely not "dozens", but was there even one? The other Allies essentially handed Poland over to Stalin.
As far as I know, no? The US was quite far from Berlin by the end of the war, and did not engage the USSR in battle for territorial control of Germany.
> saving dozens of countries from communism?
Surely not "dozens", but was there even one? The other Allies essentially handed Poland over to Stalin.
>> the US didn't meet the USSR in Berlin
>As far as I know, no? The US was quite far from Berlin by the end of the war, and did not engage the USSR in battle for territorial control of Germany.
I believe GP was referring to a few years later, when the Berlin airlift broke the Soviet blockade of West Berlin - a clear attempt by the Soviet Union to expand their spehere of control to West Berlin and eventually West Germany as a whole.
I believe GP was referring to a few years later, when the Berlin airlift broke the Soviet blockade of West Berlin - a clear attempt by the Soviet Union to expand their spehere of control to West Berlin and eventually West Germany as a whole.
And yet, had all of the engineers in the US refused to participate in military work, guess who'd be running the world right now just the same? The world actually exists and the choices people make in it have real consequences. Not participating in military technology is an unbelievably childish option. If you are at all serious about the ethics of this, you have to choose to support the entity you trust the most. For me, that's the US. Feel free to make your own choices, though.
That's a fair point but it also treats life as a zero sum game that's played in a steady-state arena where the threat of Tartars over the next hill is ever present. That's a good way to prevent progress and to defend yourself perfectly against the Last War but one would think the last 30 years of terrorism would have shown us the flaw in that.
Put another way: who benefits from $Giant_New_Military_Platform like new fighter planes? They don't really keep me safe as a citizen of the US: they don't prevent terrorists and they don't threaten other thermonuclear states. Yet we spend trillions on stuff like this any justify it with bellicose rhetoric and it seems like the only people benefiting from it are people selling it.
Put another way: who benefits from $Giant_New_Military_Platform like new fighter planes? They don't really keep me safe as a citizen of the US: they don't prevent terrorists and they don't threaten other thermonuclear states. Yet we spend trillions on stuff like this any justify it with bellicose rhetoric and it seems like the only people benefiting from it are people selling it.
Please realize that all state militaries are coevolving together and competing in an on-going global tournament for dominance at all times whether there is an official war or not, that a weakness in one area will be weaponized by a competitor (e.g. our military weakness in preventing Russian disinformation leading to a political upset), that we must continually improve, enhance, and expand our capabilities just to maintain our status quo, and that it is essential to perform well in this competitive environment just to be able to buy items from Walmart, get 15% off your car insurance, drink your Starbucks latte, and carry a placard at the local activist rally.
There are indeed warlords just over the hill, and they have names like Entropy and Resource Availability.
There are indeed warlords just over the hill, and they have names like Entropy and Resource Availability.
People immediately want to paint these truths as only products of fear.
Yes, fear is a large part of it. But it takes courage to fight against that fear and be responsible for the future of your people (whomever they are). Pretending that there is no evil in the world is cowardice.
Yes, fear is a large part of it. But it takes courage to fight against that fear and be responsible for the future of your people (whomever they are). Pretending that there is no evil in the world is cowardice.
[deleted]
The Tartars are over the hills. Democracy is in decline. Authoritarianism is on the mega-rise. The state of democracy is bad and looking worse, and if the Brexit/Trump trend of destroying the EU and breaking up the Atlantic Alliance bear just a bit more fruit, you may find that these "Tartars" are a lot closer to you than you once believed.
You call me blind to the future by looking at the past, but quite frankly, you appear to be repeating the mistakes of the past by not learning from them.
Democracy was not "won". Liberty for all does not exist.
These are fights that every generation must wage.
Or we will (and are currently) losing.
You call me blind to the future by looking at the past, but quite frankly, you appear to be repeating the mistakes of the past by not learning from them.
Democracy was not "won". Liberty for all does not exist.
These are fights that every generation must wage.
Or we will (and are currently) losing.
It's not obvious to me that democracy is in decline, or authoritarianism on the rise.
Over what time-frame? Do you have supporting data you can point me to ("In the past 10 years, more countries have switched from democratic to non-democratic government than vice versa")?
Thanks!
Over what time-frame? Do you have supporting data you can point me to ("In the past 10 years, more countries have switched from democratic to non-democratic government than vice versa")?
Thanks!
You’d probably be interested in the book “How democracies die” by two Harvard political scientists. They walk through the warning signs of a failing democracy and how many others have collapsed - and the answer is actually yes, there are plenty of warning signs that American democracy in particular is in trouble.
Some of the evidence they walk through: the collapse of political norms, political restraint and the rise of win at all costs brinksmanship, the delegitimization and dehumanization of political rivals, attacks against independent institutions and neutral arbiters, and much more.
Some of the evidence they walk through: the collapse of political norms, political restraint and the rise of win at all costs brinksmanship, the delegitimization and dehumanization of political rivals, attacks against independent institutions and neutral arbiters, and much more.
Sure. https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/01/daily-...
Is a great place to start.
Is a great place to start.
The EU under its unelected President and unaccountable unelected lawmakers (the EU parliament can't propose laws) with a constitution that would be thrown out anywhere else (and never put to the electorate as a whole) is doing a pretty good job of destroying itself never mind the rats deserting the sinking ship.
Agree. And to that I'll add, it was an ex general and ex POTUS who coined the term (or at least etched it into history):
Military Industrial Complex
Yet most act like that "friendly reminder" never happened. The collective memory is in fact short.
Military Industrial Complex
Yet most act like that "friendly reminder" never happened. The collective memory is in fact short.
Originally it was the "military-industrial-Congressional complex".
Yet we spend trillions on stuff like this any justify it with bellicose rhetoric and it seems like the only people benefiting from it are people selling it.
And the people who work at those military/government contractors. In some sense, military spending is a job-work program that transfers funds from the public coffers to citizens. That it's for useless tech means it has attributes of an entitlement. That it's called military spending and has bellicose rhetoric is part of making that entitlement palpable to citizens it wouldn't be otherwise.
And the people who work at those military/government contractors. In some sense, military spending is a job-work program that transfers funds from the public coffers to citizens. That it's for useless tech means it has attributes of an entitlement. That it's called military spending and has bellicose rhetoric is part of making that entitlement palpable to citizens it wouldn't be otherwise.
I was born and raised in Normandy, and saw the dire sacrifice a generation had to make. On my way to school, I could see the bullet holes in the walls, the tombstones of nameless soldiers, the bombs and mines we had to defuse in the fields.
What our grandfathers did was noble. What we do now is the business of war. I find it diminishing to compare what they did to what Google does now.
What our grandfathers did was noble. What we do now is the business of war. I find it diminishing to compare what they did to what Google does now.
I completely agree with this. Trying to compare WWII to the actions of the modern military is absurd.
How can you possibly compare it with overthrowing governments in South America and the Middle East, Vietnam, Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, drone strikes on hospitals, up to 200k civilians dead in Iraq, and much more - and of coursr the deeply, deeply questionable motives of all of these.
The actions of our ancestors in WWII were borne out of necessity - those of the modern military are driven by money, greed, propaganda and political point-scoring.
How can you possibly compare it with overthrowing governments in South America and the Middle East, Vietnam, Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, drone strikes on hospitals, up to 200k civilians dead in Iraq, and much more - and of coursr the deeply, deeply questionable motives of all of these.
The actions of our ancestors in WWII were borne out of necessity - those of the modern military are driven by money, greed, propaganda and political point-scoring.
>drone strikes on hospitals, up to 200k civilians dead in Iraq
You are looking at allied actions in WWII through rose colored glasses if you think that's worse.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Saint-Nazair... the allies engaged in total war.
Civillians are part of the war making capability of a nation, and in WWII all sides considered them to be valid targets.
In Saint-Nazair's case it wasn't even enemy civillians. The German U-boat port was too heavily fortified, so the British wiped out the occupied French town that fed it.
You are looking at allied actions in WWII through rose colored glasses if you think that's worse.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Saint-Nazair... the allies engaged in total war.
Civillians are part of the war making capability of a nation, and in WWII all sides considered them to be valid targets.
In Saint-Nazair's case it wasn't even enemy civillians. The German U-boat port was too heavily fortified, so the British wiped out the occupied French town that fed it.
I'd add Nanking, London, Warsaw, Auschwitz, Amsterdam, and Bataan to your list, and that's off the top of my head.
The British, U.S., USSR, Germans, Japanese, and Italians all practiced atrocities and mass warfare and/or genocide against civilian populations. I'm not challenging the credibility of your list, only the one-sidedness.
The British, U.S., USSR, Germans, Japanese, and Italians all practiced atrocities and mass warfare and/or genocide against civilian populations. I'm not challenging the credibility of your list, only the one-sidedness.
You made your point: war is dirty. But that was not my claim either.
If we want to defend the necessity and impact of those weapons, they should be taken in the context of modern american and NATO warfare, not in the context of WW2. Normandy 1944 was a very different conflict than Libya 2011 for instance.
If we want to defend the necessity and impact of those weapons, they should be taken in the context of modern american and NATO warfare, not in the context of WW2. Normandy 1944 was a very different conflict than Libya 2011 for instance.
That's because they were actually defending against an aggressor.
The business of war most of the time makes us the aggressors.
The business of war most of the time makes us the aggressors.
...the US military never clashed with Stalin's military AFAIK. Even in the Korean war, the USSR only provided supplies.
That standing up to Hitler also involved a peer partnership with the USSR's military.
That standing up to Hitler also involved a peer partnership with the USSR's military.
The US military in fact defended Stalin's military in resettling Germans who were pushed by Nazi Germany to settle Eastern Europe - of course the initial settlement wasn't legitimate either, but somewhere between half a million and two million Germans died in the resettlement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...
Also, as part of war reparations, millions of Germans were placed in forced labor by agreement of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_...
Also, as part of war reparations, millions of Germans were placed in forced labor by agreement of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_...
Moreover, the Red Army did the majority of the 'heavy lifting' in Europe during WW2. There are some pretty striking political cartoon from Dr. Seuss about this, depicting the US and Britain traveling in comfort to Germany, while the USSR carries all of their luggage.
Apart from the other fronts and the destruction of the German infrastructure and blockading supplies to Germany?
I don't imagine they were saints, but statistically they did the heavy lifting there.
Without UK/US, all of Europe would have been in the USSR
It's extremely glib to point out that the Nazi's lost to the Russian winter (let's be frank, Russian weather did more to the Nazi's than Russian soldiers ever could...) without recognizing that:
- Hitler's strategy that lost in Russia was completely predicated on the knowledge of the Western Front. No UK/USA, we may not have had Hitler losing in Russia.
- The USSR would have taken all of Europe had it not been for the USA liberating France and meeting the USSR in Berlin.
Easy to say Russians did the heavy lifting when the truth is that Hitler fucked it all up.
Easy to say that Russians did the work, when the truth is that the reason why France and UK aren't post-communist bloc countries is because of what Americans did.
It's extremely glib to point out that the Nazi's lost to the Russian winter (let's be frank, Russian weather did more to the Nazi's than Russian soldiers ever could...) without recognizing that:
- Hitler's strategy that lost in Russia was completely predicated on the knowledge of the Western Front. No UK/USA, we may not have had Hitler losing in Russia.
- The USSR would have taken all of Europe had it not been for the USA liberating France and meeting the USSR in Berlin.
Easy to say Russians did the heavy lifting when the truth is that Hitler fucked it all up.
Easy to say that Russians did the work, when the truth is that the reason why France and UK aren't post-communist bloc countries is because of what Americans did.
I'm not trying to be glib. In America the Soviet contribution to killing the Nazis is almost entirely written out of mandatory education so I think it's often relevant in American-heavy discussions to point it out.
Also, I recall hearing a talk about how one of the effects of post-WW2 soviet communism on western/northern europe was the creation of lots of social welfare programs. (Sadly I'm not in a place where I can source this but I could have sworn it was a talk by Michael Parenti.) The reason I bring this up is because I think it's disingenuous to claim that if it hadn't been for Britain and the US that France would today resemble the Balkans or Ukraine. What we typically associate with "post-communist bloc" countries happened far later when the USSR fell apart. It's a big jump to say that places like Britain would have become part of then suffered under Soviet Communism.
Also, I recall hearing a talk about how one of the effects of post-WW2 soviet communism on western/northern europe was the creation of lots of social welfare programs. (Sadly I'm not in a place where I can source this but I could have sworn it was a talk by Michael Parenti.) The reason I bring this up is because I think it's disingenuous to claim that if it hadn't been for Britain and the US that France would today resemble the Balkans or Ukraine. What we typically associate with "post-communist bloc" countries happened far later when the USSR fell apart. It's a big jump to say that places like Britain would have become part of then suffered under Soviet Communism.
In the past, I have actually about the historical education of several people who went to school between 1985-2009 and no one I've met has had any education of history past reconstruction covered in primary & secondary education (outside of Civil Rights-era, which is independently covered).
Even if you are one of the ~1% of APAM students it's spoken about in broad terms and hazy generalities after Teapot Dome (unless you count history of Baseball, which somehow is somewhat inexplicably regarded as a critical component of America history).
I find this interesting because many Americans broadly understand the succession of events leading up to and constituting WWII. On the other hand, the topics that are covered to death are barely recalled: The Revolutionary War? Washington fought that one. Civil War? Harper's Ferry & Manassas? 1812? "The time we fought the Canadians".
Even if you are one of the ~1% of APAM students it's spoken about in broad terms and hazy generalities after Teapot Dome (unless you count history of Baseball, which somehow is somewhat inexplicably regarded as a critical component of America history).
I find this interesting because many Americans broadly understand the succession of events leading up to and constituting WWII. On the other hand, the topics that are covered to death are barely recalled: The Revolutionary War? Washington fought that one. Civil War? Harper's Ferry & Manassas? 1812? "The time we fought the Canadians".
That thesis is the western government needed to show that they looked after their populations better that the WP did.
Before Stalin died, he believed that a conflict with the US was imminent. There was blatantly a hot war brewing between the US and the USSR along the borders of the West/East divide in Europe.
The comment's grandparent could have just as well been defending Western Europe from Stalin's USSR territorial lust. They didn't stop moving west just to be polite.
That vast military stand-off, which became the cold war, was a military conflict. The US deployed over three million soldiers to Europe in the 1950s almost entirely to stop the USSR from advancing any further.
The comment's grandparent could have just as well been defending Western Europe from Stalin's USSR territorial lust. They didn't stop moving west just to be polite.
That vast military stand-off, which became the cold war, was a military conflict. The US deployed over three million soldiers to Europe in the 1950s almost entirely to stop the USSR from advancing any further.
The USSR's "territorial lust" was aided and abetted by FDR and Churchill and guaranteed by their militaries. They divvied up Europe into spheres of influence at Yalta, and the US and UK were perfectly happy to gift Stalin Eastern Europe to further their own geopolitical objectives.
I'm by no means equating the three, but it's ahistorical to present the American military as an idealistic organization that exists to battle evil. Hell, Mao killed more Soviet soldiers than the USA ever did.
I'm by no means equating the three, but it's ahistorical to present the American military as an idealistic organization that exists to battle evil. Hell, Mao killed more Soviet soldiers than the USA ever did.
Honestly, would you have done things differently, if you were Churchill or FDR?
In the 20th century we had already gone through a war so terrible it was called the war to end all wars, until 20 years later when we made it look small by comparison. The deaths in WW2 accounted for 3% of the entire population of the world. And we hadn't even invented the atomic bomb until the very end.
After WW2 we were on the precipice of the next war potentially eliminating the human race. I can see why we were reluctant to jump into it all over again by "battling evil" and forcing Russia to give back the territory they took from Germany.
In the 20th century we had already gone through a war so terrible it was called the war to end all wars, until 20 years later when we made it look small by comparison. The deaths in WW2 accounted for 3% of the entire population of the world. And we hadn't even invented the atomic bomb until the very end.
After WW2 we were on the precipice of the next war potentially eliminating the human race. I can see why we were reluctant to jump into it all over again by "battling evil" and forcing Russia to give back the territory they took from Germany.
Their choice was entirely reasonable. War is rarely the right answer.
It's just kind of silly to portray the American military as "standing up to Stalin" because Americans are taught Stalin equals evil and America equals good and ipso facto America must have stood up to Stalin.
It's just kind of silly to portray the American military as "standing up to Stalin" because Americans are taught Stalin equals evil and America equals good and ipso facto America must have stood up to Stalin.
I think the west did a pretty good job of standing up to Stalin as much as they could without actually igniting WW3. The cold war ended without any direct conflict between belligerents after all, and the soviet union fell.
That is, if you take as a constraint that you don't actually want to start an all-out war, the post-WW2 west stood up to Stalin in probably the best way it possibly could have.
That is, if you take as a constraint that you don't actually want to start an all-out war, the post-WW2 west stood up to Stalin in probably the best way it possibly could have.
Our industry was literally born from the Cold War, yet now everyone wants to pretend it didn't exist. The Cold War was not just rhetoric and flag-waving. Even outside of Korea/Vietnam/Afghanistan there was continual military activity and those engaged in it took it as seriously as if the world could end.
For many, the current actions of our military weigh much more heavily than good things it did half a century or more ago. Of course, each person's morality is their own, so you may feel that working in favor of the military is justified by its past actions. For others, they see working for the military as enabling bad present and future actions, and therefore see it as immoral to offer support.
Without defending the morality of the Hitler/Stalin/Mao governments (or of the US government), it's very much worth noting that scientific researched flourished in the USSR and technological research continues to flourish in China. A lot of discoveries in computer science had roughly simultaneous Soviet / US discovery (the Cook-Levin theorem is a good example). There are a huge number of technology companies in China, and all your chips come from there anyway.
So if your goal is "I should further the goals of a military because it provides room for the sort of work I enjoy" and not "I should further the goals of a military because the military does good things," it is not at all clear that backing the US military over those of the USSR and China is the right option.
It is also worth remembering that plenty of people the US killed could have had grandchildren who wanted to work in these same fields.
So if your goal is "I should further the goals of a military because it provides room for the sort of work I enjoy" and not "I should further the goals of a military because the military does good things," it is not at all clear that backing the US military over those of the USSR and China is the right option.
It is also worth remembering that plenty of people the US killed could have had grandchildren who wanted to work in these same fields.
No. The West since 1950 has done FAR MORE scientific research than the USSR did. Soviet scientists did good work and were smart. But the Western Enlightenment model -- open communication, tolerance of dissenting voices, pursuit of truth and rejection of propaganda, and funding for basic science -- was a huge shining scientific success over the past century. Its success dwarfed that of other models. (Today the biggest threat to that model is propaganda - largely from wealthy oligarchs pursuing maximal wealth, both Russian oligarchs and Western oligarchs like the Koches and Murdoch.)
There's a reason to be proud of Western enlightenment values, which are closely connected to Western liberal democracy.
There's a reason to be proud of Western enlightenment values, which are closely connected to Western liberal democracy.
I don't know that the causal link between the West's scientific output and the West's enlightenment values is that clear. It's certainly correlated.
But the reason the US was able to do so much fundamental research in the 20th century is not (just) because the US culturally valued fundamental research - it's because the US was able to get popular support for taxing people and spending it on the war effort (both the World Wars and the Cold War) and decided that fundamental research was necessary for the war effort.
The politicians today who are cutting NASA's budget, talking about shutting down DoE, etc. aren't simply victims of Koch propaganda or disbelievers in the enlightenment - they just no longer have political cover for publicly funding research to the same extent that it was funded previously. Nobody believes that the US is at a technical disadvantage against the people we're currently at war against. They still have the political cover to fund the military itself, which continues to get large amounts of funding from political parties that generally want to lower taxes, but that base won't let them fund basic research as much as it did in the past.
But the reason the US was able to do so much fundamental research in the 20th century is not (just) because the US culturally valued fundamental research - it's because the US was able to get popular support for taxing people and spending it on the war effort (both the World Wars and the Cold War) and decided that fundamental research was necessary for the war effort.
The politicians today who are cutting NASA's budget, talking about shutting down DoE, etc. aren't simply victims of Koch propaganda or disbelievers in the enlightenment - they just no longer have political cover for publicly funding research to the same extent that it was funded previously. Nobody believes that the US is at a technical disadvantage against the people we're currently at war against. They still have the political cover to fund the military itself, which continues to get large amounts of funding from political parties that generally want to lower taxes, but that base won't let them fund basic research as much as it did in the past.
The US NIH has a $30B budget to do research on cancer and human disease. Most of that is about helping people and has zero connection to the military.
--- Edit: also, the movement to close down DoE and cut NASAs budget certainly WAS created by American oligarchs like the Koches. They have created a propaganda machine to push for tax cuts for the rich. And part of the propaganda, pushed by outlets funded or controlled by GOP billionaires, like Fox, Limbaugh, Cato(founded as Koch), Sinclair, Heritage, SPN, Cit U, Jud Watch, Bradley, Searle, etc etc. is that we need to shrink government (so we can cut taxes on the rich.)
One description of that strategy is here [1] Today’s Republican Party is the party that those activists made. Congressional Republicans who came up in the populist tax revolts of the 1970s abandoned the old party orthodoxy of balanced budgets and rebranded themselves as the tax-cutting party. They embraced the idea that deficits don’t matter as long as those deficits result from Republican tax cuts.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/opinion/republicans-tax-c...
--- Edit: also, the movement to close down DoE and cut NASAs budget certainly WAS created by American oligarchs like the Koches. They have created a propaganda machine to push for tax cuts for the rich. And part of the propaganda, pushed by outlets funded or controlled by GOP billionaires, like Fox, Limbaugh, Cato(founded as Koch), Sinclair, Heritage, SPN, Cit U, Jud Watch, Bradley, Searle, etc etc. is that we need to shrink government (so we can cut taxes on the rich.)
One description of that strategy is here [1] Today’s Republican Party is the party that those activists made. Congressional Republicans who came up in the populist tax revolts of the 1970s abandoned the old party orthodoxy of balanced budgets and rebranded themselves as the tax-cutting party. They embraced the idea that deficits don’t matter as long as those deficits result from Republican tax cuts.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/opinion/republicans-tax-c...
>But the reason the US was able to do so much fundamental research in the 20th century is not (just) because the US culturally valued fundamental research - it's because the US was able to get popular support for taxing people and spending it on the war effort (both the World Wars and the Cold War) and decided that fundamental research was necessary for the war effort.
Are you implying that the USSR spent a smaller percentage of tax revenue on the war effort?
Are you implying that the USSR spent a smaller percentage of tax revenue on the war effort?
Stalin's favorite scientist was Trofim Lysenko, to whom he gave an enormous amount of power to direct research in the USSR. And Lysenko was pretty ruthless in using that power to suppress science he didn't like, esp with regards to genetics and evolution. He set back Soviet science by decades. And Mao repeated his mistakes: Lysenko's literal bad seeds contributed to the famine of the Great Leap Forward.
>> create this quite nifty Liberty bubble
> worth noting that scientific researched flourished in the USSR
You seem to be talking about two totally different things. The grandparent did not talk about scientific advancement. He also wasn't talking about the USSR's military, he was specifically talking about the US's. The US, you may be surprised to discover, pursued, and continues to pursue, a political agenda quite different than that of the USSR.
> "I should further the goals of a military because it provides room for the sort of work I enjoy"
He didn't say that at all. He said specifically 'create this quite nifty Liberty bubble', which is not the same thing.
> worth noting that scientific researched flourished in the USSR
You seem to be talking about two totally different things. The grandparent did not talk about scientific advancement. He also wasn't talking about the USSR's military, he was specifically talking about the US's. The US, you may be surprised to discover, pursued, and continues to pursue, a political agenda quite different than that of the USSR.
> "I should further the goals of a military because it provides room for the sort of work I enjoy"
He didn't say that at all. He said specifically 'create this quite nifty Liberty bubble', which is not the same thing.
There was definitely a reference to scientific advancement: "As an engineer ... After all, I would not be here, and my job would not exist, and the freedom I have to do this work would not exist ... this quite nifty Liberty bubble that these few generations get to play in."
That is why I interpreted the "quite nifty Liberty bubble" as referring to the ability to participate in technical / scientific endeavors - the "freedom I have to do this work" - not about liberty in the abstract.
('criley2, if I'm misreading you, please let me know.)
That is why I interpreted the "quite nifty Liberty bubble" as referring to the ability to participate in technical / scientific endeavors - the "freedom I have to do this work" - not about liberty in the abstract.
('criley2, if I'm misreading you, please let me know.)
haha, USSR research flourished? Do you mean how the USSR crushed any research into computing because it contradicted their ideology? And "Chinese chips" are all foreign designs.
I'm sure Soviet times joke that "our microschemes are biggest!" came out of nowhere.. I wonder why all the consumer tech in USSR was so backwards if research was so flourishing :)
It seems like their we're ideological reasons at first. But you are leaving out crucial details afterwards.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_in_the_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_in_the_...
I guess that is a standpoint that would be easy to take if all governments were flawless and co-existed in peace.
But history paints a different picture, with events like Iraq, the Kontras, NSA Dragnetting just to name a very select few.
Governments are willfully violent towards its own citizens and others for what is often not much of a reason at all.
But history paints a different picture, with events like Iraq, the Kontras, NSA Dragnetting just to name a very select few.
Governments are willfully violent towards its own citizens and others for what is often not much of a reason at all.
Nobody stood up to Stalin and Mao. Cherry picking the good stuff doesn’t make the bad stuff acceptable. Carpet bombing of civilians in German cities for example - an act of zero military value.
The takeaway from WWII is not that the military is a wonderful thing but that the UN is a wonderful thing.
The takeaway from WWII is not that the military is a wonderful thing but that the UN is a wonderful thing.
> The takeaway from WWII is not that the military is a wonderful thing but that the UN is a wonderful thing.
The same UN that causes Cholera outbreaks, protects rapists (as long as they wear blue helmets), and steps aside to allow massive genocides to occur on a not-irregular basis ( Rwanda, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, South Sudan for starters).
Or are you talking about the UN that funded the Oil for Food program so a bunch of super-elite rich people could get kickbacks from an evil dicatator?
Maybe it's the UN that has stood by for decades while more and more dictators and legitimately horrible people acquire and use WMDs (Libya, Syria, North Korea, and on and on)...
Seriously, how much good has the UN actually done that wasn't backedstopped by a US Super Carrier or two?
The same UN that causes Cholera outbreaks, protects rapists (as long as they wear blue helmets), and steps aside to allow massive genocides to occur on a not-irregular basis ( Rwanda, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, South Sudan for starters).
Or are you talking about the UN that funded the Oil for Food program so a bunch of super-elite rich people could get kickbacks from an evil dicatator?
Maybe it's the UN that has stood by for decades while more and more dictators and legitimately horrible people acquire and use WMDs (Libya, Syria, North Korea, and on and on)...
Seriously, how much good has the UN actually done that wasn't backedstopped by a US Super Carrier or two?
The only thing the UN has shown is how utterly weak it is. It's ability to force compliance is limited to those members willingness to do so. It's just another puppet of the superpowers.
The Korean war was a case of the US and UN standing up to Mao's influence. The North Koreans lost ground until PRC forces started pouring in.
Well depends those cities had large military plants Hamburg was building the scary fast U boats for example.
Btw I am lucky as my fathers house was bombed (when he wasn't in it) oh but he did live near the larges spitfire plant - which was a military target.
Btw I am lucky as my fathers house was bombed (when he wasn't in it) oh but he did live near the larges spitfire plant - which was a military target.
I don't think it's useful to refer to a military without also including its leaders. The military that fought against Hitler and Stalin and Mao isn't the same military that invades countries and topples governments under false pretenses.
How so? Eisenhower finished the WW2, and then went on to topple the government of Iran and restore the Shah. Plus he gave bombers and napalm to help the French keep their colonies in Indochina.
True, I did not think of that. I we'd have to go even more granular and refer to specific engagements.
I understand this perspective, but I think it oversimplifies the reality of why we (the US) go to war. I am a veteran of the war in Iraq, a conflict that could be reduced to a one-line "defend our way of life" sound bite if you are willing to ignore everything else that happened. I do not want my children to use my involvement in that conflict to remove their responsibility to make hard ethical choices.
One of the bigger issues I have with this that Google is only doing this kind of work for the US military, which for me as a non-US Googler makes me a bit uncomfortable. Because some relatives have been fighting the US military not even that long ago.
your grandfather was probably considered by leadership to be just as disposable as every other low-income male in the population at that time... he's lucky that he didn't die in the trenches. you are, too. war is power and money.
glowing historical illusions of "responsibility" and "valor" don't protect us from nuclear holocaust.
glowing historical illusions of "responsibility" and "valor" don't protect us from nuclear holocaust.
yes your freedom wouldn’t be here if we weren’t drone bombing weddings of goat farmers in yemen (the poorest people in the world). Or maybe if we weren’t setting civilians on fire in laos or cambodia or bombing pharmaceutical factories in Sudan. Where would our freedom be without that?
you already lost this game when you had to go back to ww2 for a just war.
you already lost this game when you had to go back to ww2 for a just war.
World War II wasn't just, either. It's simply that the Allies were less evil than the Axis. The Allies literally included Stalin. The US placed an ethnic minority of its own people in concentration camps despite zero evidence that these people were going to help an enemy country. And so forth.
Sorry, but there is an enormous difference between WWII and the terrible actions of the US military since then.
You would be here. Your job would be the same. In fact, it would be hard to tell the difference. With all due respect, the 'ultimate sacrifices' might have been given, but many believe, including those that survived the horrors of war, that it was never to safeguard you, but rather a feast for those that prey on volatility.
That’s not a safe assumption. The US was awfully busy fighting the Japanese. Had they stayed out of Europe, Hitler would certainly have defeated Britain (leaving Africa unprotected) and likely had the resources spare to defeat the USSR too. From there Hitler could support the Japanese against the US and would have massive resources to do so.
Hitler’s plan really was world domination. He had plans for a rocket-powered trans-Atlantic plane to bomb New York. Not to mention that the Nazis had the V2 and even a jet fighter by the end of the war (but too few resources to build/deploy them). With more resources the Nazis may well have developed their nuclear bomb.
Hitler’s plan really was world domination. He had plans for a rocket-powered trans-Atlantic plane to bomb New York. Not to mention that the Nazis had the V2 and even a jet fighter by the end of the war (but too few resources to build/deploy them). With more resources the Nazis may well have developed their nuclear bomb.
[deleted]
It's not at all certain that Hitler would have defeated Britain if the US had stayed out of Europe.
As far as I know, most historians agree that the US hastened the Allies victory over Germany but the Allies would have (eventually, probably) won anyways.
As far as I know, most historians agree that the US hastened the Allies victory over Germany but the Allies would have (eventually, probably) won anyways.
That these Google engineers support a global surveillance network that stalks and spies on everyone while taking a moral stances against military projects is truly laughable.
Keeping "free" nations safe and prosperous is as fine a goal as any.
Keeping "free" nations safe and prosperous is as fine a goal as any.
Not everyone thinks that the U.S. drone program has much to do with keeping free nations safe and prosperous.
I have refused to work for defense companies, I try to encourage my friends and sibling to avoid these companies.
Boy they pay great though...
Boy they pay great though...
Compared to FANG companies not realy
FANGs defeat themselves by putting themselves in COL areas that are really high thus reducing their relative compensation to 1/3 or less, even with all that stock. That's pretty easy for govt to beat.
As opposed to the col in the areas the government is in? Don't forget the limits of civil service pay oh and regular sequesters and budget cuts and reductions in the value of DB pensions.
CoL and benefits need to be figured into your assertion
Yes right trouble is this is often used by hr to try and explain why they don't pay market rate.
Doesn't really explain why google pays less in London UK for that google does in low col states in the states.
And I don't think Lockheed and BAE pay their engineers as much as FANG companies do and they certainly don't out compete on benefits.
Doesn't really explain why google pays less in London UK for that google does in low col states in the states.
And I don't think Lockheed and BAE pay their engineers as much as FANG companies do and they certainly don't out compete on benefits.
Exactly right. Somehow people keep explaining high salaries of FANG in terms of cities/area in US. Truth is more likely that these companies have immense market cap and profitability and being helmed by first generation liberal entrepreneurs they are happy with sharing benefits.
IBM, Cisco or any other typical IT company pays 120-150K salaries in bay area and not much of profit sharing/ equity.
IBM, Cisco or any other typical IT company pays 120-150K salaries in bay area and not much of profit sharing/ equity.
Complicit of what?
These smug generalizations, if you did not vote for X, you are racist! If you are not for A, you are for Genocide! are not going to win you over people that are not already in your camp.
These smug generalizations, if you did not vote for X, you are racist! If you are not for A, you are for Genocide! are not going to win you over people that are not already in your camp.
That's fair enough but you have to decide if your cool with that and resign if you have moral beliefs that run counter to your employers
You come across as wanting that sweet sv $ and benefits without having to make any moral choices - if you got to work for CNI company's you know what the deal is.
And before you ask yes I did face that at my first job when I analysed some high speed film from one experiment and though oh I know what that "objct" is and my office mates said yes that's probably REDACTED.
You come across as wanting that sweet sv $ and benefits without having to make any moral choices - if you got to work for CNI company's you know what the deal is.
And before you ask yes I did face that at my first job when I analysed some high speed film from one experiment and though oh I know what that "objct" is and my office mates said yes that's probably REDACTED.
I disagree strongly. Employees are a stakeholder in the company, and if they can band together to enact change on the companies goals for a moral purpose, then that is an option as well.
If their efforts fails, they can choose to resign, or take other actions as employees in history have. It's not the only option, it may be the only option ultimately that succeeds in removing yourself from complicity.
If their efforts fails, they can choose to resign, or take other actions as employees in history have. It's not the only option, it may be the only option ultimately that succeeds in removing yourself from complicity.
Well id agree on the stakeholder side but try that in the USA and they will treat it in the same way that they would union organizing :-)
You will find that in general that a lot more googlers probably wouldn't take that view.
You will find that in general that a lot more googlers probably wouldn't take that view.
> Contributing means being complicit.
I don't agree with this. Many open source projects have been used for sinister means (not just by governments). But does that make those contributors complicit? Should those contributors be safe-guarding against all possible unintended use cases?
It seems like you're painting all military efforts and funding in evil terms. But these efforts are directed by many different people, each with their own goals and agendas. Some of those efforts are intended for the betterment of humanity, while other efforts are at the detriment of humanity (at least in my opinion).
I worked for several years at a large defense contractor. The majority of our funding came from military contracts. I worked on a project intended to help detect and disarm explosive devices. And I worked next to a team that was trying to rapidly detect infectious diseases. We all thought we were doing work that would benefit society. But virtually any technology can be used for malicious purposes. Does that make us complicit if those technologies are ever used in malicious ways? Do the evil actions of some people in an organization make the entire organization evil? Does that mean that all military efforts are unjust?
I don't agree with this. Many open source projects have been used for sinister means (not just by governments). But does that make those contributors complicit? Should those contributors be safe-guarding against all possible unintended use cases?
It seems like you're painting all military efforts and funding in evil terms. But these efforts are directed by many different people, each with their own goals and agendas. Some of those efforts are intended for the betterment of humanity, while other efforts are at the detriment of humanity (at least in my opinion).
I worked for several years at a large defense contractor. The majority of our funding came from military contracts. I worked on a project intended to help detect and disarm explosive devices. And I worked next to a team that was trying to rapidly detect infectious diseases. We all thought we were doing work that would benefit society. But virtually any technology can be used for malicious purposes. Does that make us complicit if those technologies are ever used in malicious ways? Do the evil actions of some people in an organization make the entire organization evil? Does that mean that all military efforts are unjust?
> Does that make us complicit if those technologies are ever used in malicious ways?
Yes. If you choose to work for an entity you help further their work. Militaries are made for war and by contributing to a military, you directly help them commit atrocities. Working for a military is simply war profiteering [1].
> Do the evil actions of some people in an organization make the entire organization evil?
Yes, if you voluntarily join an organization knowing they have evil people doing evil things.
> Does that mean that all military efforts are unjust?
Yes, with probably the only exception being a defensive war.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
Yes. If you choose to work for an entity you help further their work. Militaries are made for war and by contributing to a military, you directly help them commit atrocities. Working for a military is simply war profiteering [1].
> Do the evil actions of some people in an organization make the entire organization evil?
Yes, if you voluntarily join an organization knowing they have evil people doing evil things.
> Does that mean that all military efforts are unjust?
Yes, with probably the only exception being a defensive war.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
By using this "logic" you draw a very blurry line, that wont lead to any decision making, just arguing over who is most evil.
I can now assume that miners and forgery workers are complicit in murder because they harvest and refine the metals that build weapons. And that farmers are complicit because they produce the food that is used in military rations, the wool or cotton that is used to make their uniforms.
I can now assume that miners and forgery workers are complicit in murder because they harvest and refine the metals that build weapons. And that farmers are complicit because they produce the food that is used in military rations, the wool or cotton that is used to make their uniforms.
You should understand that building basically anything will further the goal of some military over another.
Technology is neutral - who it's used by and how is not.
I don't care what you build, if it has the goal of improving a workflow or automating a process then it will de-facto support one organization over another.
Technology is neutral - who it's used by and how is not.
I don't care what you build, if it has the goal of improving a workflow or automating a process then it will de-facto support one organization over another.
On one hand, I reluctantly appreciate Trump's election because it will force silicon valley to think many times before readily giving up user privacy to the US government. I felt like the attitude was very lax under Obama (despite the Snowden revelations).
On the other hand, this bothers me a bit because it continues to allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doing is "moral". If Google stops working with the Pentagon after this petition, people in the valley will pat their backs and enjoy how they are making the world a better place. They will not have any incentive to rethink the sale of user data to advertisers, creating highly addictive mentally harmful products, etc.
Overall, it's good that at least people in the valley are somewhat mindful of their actions and care about society (compared my current industry, finance). I hope they can be successful at a deeper level.
On the other hand, this bothers me a bit because it continues to allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doing is "moral". If Google stops working with the Pentagon after this petition, people in the valley will pat their backs and enjoy how they are making the world a better place. They will not have any incentive to rethink the sale of user data to advertisers, creating highly addictive mentally harmful products, etc.
Overall, it's good that at least people in the valley are somewhat mindful of their actions and care about society (compared my current industry, finance). I hope they can be successful at a deeper level.
> allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doing is "moral"
People refusing to work on military technology isn't "appearing moral". It's just "moral", at least if you consider war to be generally amoral.
People here and elsewhere have been throwing the term "virtue signalling" around a lot in the last year or so. This is a perfect counterexample: Google employees speaking out against military tech are shouldering the risk of appearing disloyal to their employer. If Google were to cut their military ties, they would forgo whatever benefit they previously sought in that relationship.
People refusing to work on military technology isn't "appearing moral". It's just "moral", at least if you consider war to be generally amoral.
People here and elsewhere have been throwing the term "virtue signalling" around a lot in the last year or so. This is a perfect counterexample: Google employees speaking out against military tech are shouldering the risk of appearing disloyal to their employer. If Google were to cut their military ties, they would forgo whatever benefit they previously sought in that relationship.
Do you think the US should stop developing military technology? I doubt it, and I doubt many Google employees do, either. I doubt they would be happy to live in a world where the U.S. has a weaker military than countries like China or Russia. I also doubt they would approve of throwing out our advanced targeting technology in favor of Vietnam-style carpet bombing.
They are uncomfortable with killing people even though a technologically-advanced military is probably a good thing. They are comfortable with tracking and manipulating millions of people even though it's definitely a bad thing. This is squeamishness, not morality.
They are uncomfortable with killing people even though a technologically-advanced military is probably a good thing. They are comfortable with tracking and manipulating millions of people even though it's definitely a bad thing. This is squeamishness, not morality.
What you say about "your country" kinda legitimates anyone saying that about "their" country, too. There's plenty of arms dealer selling to all sorts of sides, are there not? And generally speaking, at best soldiers defend against invading soldiers, at worst they are invading or "just" murdering some or a lot of civilians.
Remember when the cold war ended, for a while, but military budgets didn't exactly collapse? Isn't that "funny" how that works, and how we have no problem realizing that in other contexts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)
You make war profitable, you will have more war. The details are trickier, sure. Slogans aren't enough. But if you don't even have the will, don't worry about finding a way.
> I doubt they would be happy to live in a world where the U.S. has a weaker military than countries like China or Russia.
Yeah, nevermind the big nations all having their go at weaker nations, and the US wars of aggression, under exactly that pretense. No, it's really that the every last person in that huuuuuge industry -- shoveling tax dollars into gadgets that can be used to defend, to destroy, to enforce resource extraction as well as for domestic control -- wants to look out for you, because you have the same nationality in the passport. It's the children on non-Americans that get labels like "fun-sized terroris", American children have names. Those lines could not ever blur.
Yes, you can't just unilaterally disarm. But you also can't keep hitting others (and yourself) while gearing up even more, at increasing rate, while subverting self-determination of others and intellectual honesty of self at every corner, and then say "it just happens to be a dangerous world, I'm just reacting". The people you're just reacting to say the same thing, and the people who sell you and them that lie laugh all the way to the bank, and should there be need for it, they won't share their bunker with you. They'd sooner share it with Russian and Chinese war profiteers, so to speak.
Remember when the cold war ended, for a while, but military budgets didn't exactly collapse? Isn't that "funny" how that works, and how we have no problem realizing that in other contexts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)
You make war profitable, you will have more war. The details are trickier, sure. Slogans aren't enough. But if you don't even have the will, don't worry about finding a way.
> I doubt they would be happy to live in a world where the U.S. has a weaker military than countries like China or Russia.
Yeah, nevermind the big nations all having their go at weaker nations, and the US wars of aggression, under exactly that pretense. No, it's really that the every last person in that huuuuuge industry -- shoveling tax dollars into gadgets that can be used to defend, to destroy, to enforce resource extraction as well as for domestic control -- wants to look out for you, because you have the same nationality in the passport. It's the children on non-Americans that get labels like "fun-sized terroris", American children have names. Those lines could not ever blur.
Yes, you can't just unilaterally disarm. But you also can't keep hitting others (and yourself) while gearing up even more, at increasing rate, while subverting self-determination of others and intellectual honesty of self at every corner, and then say "it just happens to be a dangerous world, I'm just reacting". The people you're just reacting to say the same thing, and the people who sell you and them that lie laugh all the way to the bank, and should there be need for it, they won't share their bunker with you. They'd sooner share it with Russian and Chinese war profiteers, so to speak.
.
If that would ever happen, we wouldn't be talking about this at all. Reality check!
Right, it's reminiscent of decrying "virtue signaling" as if there is anything bad with doing something because it's virtuous
We shouldn't make fun of people because they "do the right thing". That sounds like something Facebook would do
We shouldn't make fun of people because they "do the right thing". That sounds like something Facebook would do
The problem is when you write off your culpability to do more because "At least I did something" via virtue signaling.
So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal necessarily, but often is seen as an empty gesture by people who don't talk/act towards the actual problems.
So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal necessarily, but often is seen as an empty gesture by people who don't talk/act towards the actual problems.
It's an intellectually dishonest argument, because it actually uses someone's profession of good intentions, accepts them, and then somehow turns it against the speaker.
As used on the internet, it's also useless because it always assumes the speaker doesn't actually act on their believes, and there usually is no way for them to prove their willingness to act on their believes.
It also ignores that even just stating such believes can have an effect. After all, these statements are used to convince others to adopt them.
The best proof of the last point may actually be this protest by Google employees: their conviction was probably formed by reading and hearing about the ethical responsibility of engineers, a topic that is certainly teeming with "virtue signalling" according to the common definition. They might even be the product of Google's own "virtue signalling", i. e. "Do no Evil". Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin only ever wanted to pay lip service to ethical behaviour. But their employees didn't get the full memo, took them by their word, and are now acting upon it.
In this sense, "virtue signalling" aka "Greenwashing" or "diversity boilerplate" may start as a cynical profit-motivated lie, and end up changing the world for the better.
As used on the internet, it's also useless because it always assumes the speaker doesn't actually act on their believes, and there usually is no way for them to prove their willingness to act on their believes.
It also ignores that even just stating such believes can have an effect. After all, these statements are used to convince others to adopt them.
The best proof of the last point may actually be this protest by Google employees: their conviction was probably formed by reading and hearing about the ethical responsibility of engineers, a topic that is certainly teeming with "virtue signalling" according to the common definition. They might even be the product of Google's own "virtue signalling", i. e. "Do no Evil". Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin only ever wanted to pay lip service to ethical behaviour. But their employees didn't get the full memo, took them by their word, and are now acting upon it.
In this sense, "virtue signalling" aka "Greenwashing" or "diversity boilerplate" may start as a cynical profit-motivated lie, and end up changing the world for the better.
Reliable signals are as a rule expensive.
In decrying “virtue signaling”, I think critics express “talk is cheap” not just “talk can be false.”
In decrying “virtue signaling”, I think critics express “talk is cheap” not just “talk can be false.”
Saying "talk is cheap" implores the listener to act on their statements.
Saying "virtue signaling" implores the listeners to stop expressing their views.
Saying "virtue signaling" implores the listeners to stop expressing their views.
Potato potato
Yea, I don't think virtue signaling is always wrong, but I think there is wrong virtue signaling.
A lot of the vitriol on the internet is destructive virtue signaling using holier than thou approaches that alienate people close to your position, this causes division, not unity, and is one of the key issues on the Left - i.e. the Left attacking itself over minutiae as the Right marches on.
A lot of the vitriol on the internet is destructive virtue signaling using holier than thou approaches that alienate people close to your position, this causes division, not unity, and is one of the key issues on the Left - i.e. the Left attacking itself over minutiae as the Right marches on.
Sure, and I agree that Google shouldn't stop here. But then again there is a difference, at least in my opinion, between doing something that helps the military in a support role and doing something that actively assists them in killing people. Letting the military use google cloud or google search is different than working on an AI-assisted targeting system for drones. That is where I would draw the line for myself.
>It's just "moral", at least if you consider war to be generally amoral.
The military is also responsible for defense and disaster recovery (national guard). There are many technologies created to be resilient and life-saving by the military (ARPANET). Working with on certain military-funded projects is definitely non black-and-white like you imply.
The military is also responsible for defense and disaster recovery (national guard). There are many technologies created to be resilient and life-saving by the military (ARPANET). Working with on certain military-funded projects is definitely non black-and-white like you imply.
needToSay(1)
Being “mindful of their actions” doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing the right thing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I don’t really get why anyone would want drones to be less accurate, but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right?
I don’t really get why anyone would want drones to be less accurate, but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right?
Incidentedly, I worked on drones for the Navy and Marines for many years.
My issue is with the hypocracy. Don't claim to be moral and sell this Kool aid. It sounds a lot like religious high priests that I have a viceral reaction to (given where I come from). It could just be my own personal issue with the faux moral sell of the valley.
My issue is with the hypocracy. Don't claim to be moral and sell this Kool aid. It sounds a lot like religious high priests that I have a viceral reaction to (given where I come from). It could just be my own personal issue with the faux moral sell of the valley.
> My issue is with the hypocrisy.
There are degrees of morality.
Just like a criminal might object to being defrauded because they feel it crosses a line.
Everybody is a hypocrite to some extent, you at least seem to be aware of that fact that you are simply a gun for hire which makes it easier to reason about the position of others.
There are degrees of morality.
Just like a criminal might object to being defrauded because they feel it crosses a line.
Everybody is a hypocrite to some extent, you at least seem to be aware of that fact that you are simply a gun for hire which makes it easier to reason about the position of others.
> you at least seem to be aware of that fact that you are simply a gun for hire which makes it easier to reason about the position of others.
That probably is the case. Morality is also very subjective (which, to some, is a matter of belief). Maybe "hypocrisy" is not the right word. Perhaps I was looking for "lack of self awareness". That is kind of what I meant with "delusion".
There are a lot of good, empathetic people in Silicon Valley. More empathetic than probably any other subgroup I have ever encountered. And they have a deep desire to change the world. I have a lot of respect for that.
But they also circle jerk about that all the time (you see this in finance at charity events too). And in that circle jerk, thinking they are improving humanity, they end up cozing up with the federal government, foreign dictators, and even suppressing free thought! And I am not acquitting the Military Industrial Complex of doing a lot of the same things (but at least they are less deluded, having the "American interests" narrative as opposed to "make the world a better place" narrative).
That probably is the case. Morality is also very subjective (which, to some, is a matter of belief). Maybe "hypocrisy" is not the right word. Perhaps I was looking for "lack of self awareness". That is kind of what I meant with "delusion".
There are a lot of good, empathetic people in Silicon Valley. More empathetic than probably any other subgroup I have ever encountered. And they have a deep desire to change the world. I have a lot of respect for that.
But they also circle jerk about that all the time (you see this in finance at charity events too). And in that circle jerk, thinking they are improving humanity, they end up cozing up with the federal government, foreign dictators, and even suppressing free thought! And I am not acquitting the Military Industrial Complex of doing a lot of the same things (but at least they are less deluded, having the "American interests" narrative as opposed to "make the world a better place" narrative).
To some extent living in a self-reinforcing bubble will cause people to believe their own bullshit. SV is not unique in this, there are plenty of people who are obviously busy with enriching themselves and their buddies while doing this 'to improve the world'. I don't buy it, and I would prefer it if they were honest about it but then again what does it matter, they're certainly not fooling anybody.
The few that really want to improve the world stand out and don't feel the need to sell themselves as improving the world, they don't need to: it's obvious, their actions speak louder than words.
The few that really want to improve the world stand out and don't feel the need to sell themselves as improving the world, they don't need to: it's obvious, their actions speak louder than words.
> but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right?
More specifically, a warmongering fool who can't discern a false dichotomy - because your options in life are rarely ever drones vs more lethal drones.
These regions we're using drones in. They could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation. Isn't that what Google should be doing, given that they "don't do evil"? Building tools to blow people up seems slightly counter intuitive.
More specifically, a warmongering fool who can't discern a false dichotomy - because your options in life are rarely ever drones vs more lethal drones.
These regions we're using drones in. They could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation. Isn't that what Google should be doing, given that they "don't do evil"? Building tools to blow people up seems slightly counter intuitive.
Id argue it's not a false dichotomy because drone strikes will go on regardless of what Google does. It's very clear that whatever collateral damage drones currently cause is an acceptable cost to the militaries using them.
"If you don't help make drones more accurate, you're the reason for collateralized murder".
Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death. Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities. And for that reason it's a false dichotomy.
Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death. Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities. And for that reason it's a false dichotomy.
> "If you don't help make drones more accurate, you're the reason for collateralized murder".
I never stated anything about blame, nor do I think that choosing to not participate makes someone culpable.
> Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death.
I have not "droned" anyone.
> Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities.
It's possible, sure, but certainly not probable. Drone strikes are increasing, not decreasing. I don't think you're thinking about this very pragmatically.
I never stated anything about blame, nor do I think that choosing to not participate makes someone culpable.
> Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death.
I have not "droned" anyone.
> Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities.
It's possible, sure, but certainly not probable. Drone strikes are increasing, not decreasing. I don't think you're thinking about this very pragmatically.
You’re saying that as if droning was specifically meant to target innocent people, when that’s exactly what they’re trying to avoid.
But how many of the "non-innocent" people who have been killed in drone strikes had actually been found guilty in a fair trial?
And of those who had been, how many were sentenced to death?
And of those who had been, how many were sentenced to death?
It’s war, not a court. Society hasn’t legislated that those who attack this country should be presumed innocent and convicted only after due process. This is true in any country.
"go on regardless" argument can be used to justify absolutely anything so I don't think it helps advancing the meaningful debate.
Sure it can. We can ask "what are you going to do now that we agree it happens regardless?".
If you can accept existence contains horror in all forms, then you can go on your way to make the best impact you can for those you care about.
If you can't accept that, you just sit around arguing if life could be perfect.
If you can accept existence contains horror in all forms, then you can go on your way to make the best impact you can for those you care about.
If you can't accept that, you just sit around arguing if life could be perfect.
> regardless of what Google does
If Google employees wanted to, they could probably put a lot of pressure on the military directly. Imagine Google no longer served ip addresses that belonged to the military unless they ended their drone strikes. Or say they turned off google maps for anyone that is known to work for the military.
If Google employees wanted to, they could probably put a lot of pressure on the military directly. Imagine Google no longer served ip addresses that belonged to the military unless they ended their drone strikes. Or say they turned off google maps for anyone that is known to work for the military.
Hell, our own country could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation.
> On the other hand, this bothers me a bit because it continues to allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doing is "moral"
> They will not have any incentive to rethink the sale of user data to advertisers
Is it not possible that one will lead to the other? We're seeing the beginnings of a real examination of the power Silicon Valley giants have. Recent revelations about Facebook, amongst others, shows that awareness of advertising profiles etc. is increasing as well.
> They will not have any incentive to rethink the sale of user data to advertisers
Is it not possible that one will lead to the other? We're seeing the beginnings of a real examination of the power Silicon Valley giants have. Recent revelations about Facebook, amongst others, shows that awareness of advertising profiles etc. is increasing as well.
Not only that, but unless the effort is global, the impact of any AI will deliver greater effect in countries with less citizen rights.
So while it's great these protestors want to protect us from AI, those in China, Russia, India, Iran, will endure a greater threat from AI and it behooves us to be at the forefront lest we fall behind.
In other words a moratorium can only work if all participants agree and participate. Sort of like the anti nuclear proliferation treaty.
So while it's great these protestors want to protect us from AI, those in China, Russia, India, Iran, will endure a greater threat from AI and it behooves us to be at the forefront lest we fall behind.
In other words a moratorium can only work if all participants agree and participate. Sort of like the anti nuclear proliferation treaty.
Serious question for those who agree with this petition. Which country's military would you like to see be the most technologically advanced in 20 years?
As an Indian, I hope it is the USA. At the end of the day, it has to be a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy or I fear for what the world will become. And I say that even while agreeing that many military actions the US has taken in the past have been terrible.
Note : I do not agree with the petition, but the question was too tempting.
Note : I do not agree with the petition, but the question was too tempting.
I'd vote for Belgium.
More seriously: the US has nuclear weapons, rendering them safe from any direct confrontation with enemies challenging them technologically.
They have a conventional military 10x the size needed for the sort of intervention that actually succeeded in the past (the Balkans, the first Gulf war). The rather unsuccessful wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) were lost not for technological reasons or any other dimension of military might, but because the US military sucks at convincing people of the benefits of democracy.
Want to win the next ten wars? Put the money into Hollywood blockbusters and the world's best Halal fast food chain.
More seriously: the US has nuclear weapons, rendering them safe from any direct confrontation with enemies challenging them technologically.
They have a conventional military 10x the size needed for the sort of intervention that actually succeeded in the past (the Balkans, the first Gulf war). The rather unsuccessful wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) were lost not for technological reasons or any other dimension of military might, but because the US military sucks at convincing people of the benefits of democracy.
Want to win the next ten wars? Put the money into Hollywood blockbusters and the world's best Halal fast food chain.
>I'd vote for Belgium.
I always laugh when people suggest these meek tiny European states should be in charge of running the world and how much more civilized they are. The reality is that these countries aren't meek by choice and we already know from history what a country like Belgium would do if given a tiny sliver of power.
I always laugh when people suggest these meek tiny European states should be in charge of running the world and how much more civilized they are. The reality is that these countries aren't meek by choice and we already know from history what a country like Belgium would do if given a tiny sliver of power.
I would focus on the word tiny in your statement. America has to solve problems at scale. California has 3 million more people than Canada.
America is a federation of 50 states. The EU is trying to become a federation of the European states.
America is a federation of 50 states. The EU is trying to become a federation of the European states.
I'd vote for Belgium.
Belgian atrocities in the Congo suggests that would be a very, very poor choice
Belgian atrocities in the Congo suggests that would be a very, very poor choice
By the "atrocities in the past" metric, any country would be a bad choice. The Trail of Tears comes to mind.
Well, not any country. Fiji would be fine.
You might be interested in the book The Seventh Sense: Power, Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks. The author builds a thesis around the idea that one can understand the next wave of power as a network problem. He presents the loss of the Iraq war within this framework, as a failure on the part of a conventional military to adapt to the new forms of influence, communication and organization enabled by dense networks.
Yeah, maybe...
I think the problems are far easier to explain. Watching the documentary Restrepo, I was surprised to see how terrifyingly stupid American GIs are at anything but actual warfare.
The most telling scene was a meeting they had with the local "elders". This was in one of the most isolated valleys, even by Afghani standards. They were talking about a road to be build, and promising jobs for the locals.
Yet it was absolutely clear that these villagers did not even share the concept of a "job". They were goat herders mostly, and possibly some farmers. I'd bet that not one of them is a wage-earning employee or worker. They simply tend to their family's animals.
"Trade" is probably understood in these places, "jobs" is not. They tried to win over the local population with promises entirely based on an American POV.
In larger cities, such promises might have had a better chance to succeed. But I think it's instructive to look at the only people whose "hearts & minds^ the US actually managed to win: translators and other local employees tend to be the US' most ardent supporters. That's maybe due to the money they got, yes. And there's some selection bias at play, as well. But if I had to guess, I'd say simple, honest day-to-day social contact had the most influence.
I think the Us military should form a brigade entirely made up of hippies that can play instruments, like to talk to strangers, can play soccer and basketball, grow weed, and are good petting dogs and getting children to smile.
I think the problems are far easier to explain. Watching the documentary Restrepo, I was surprised to see how terrifyingly stupid American GIs are at anything but actual warfare.
The most telling scene was a meeting they had with the local "elders". This was in one of the most isolated valleys, even by Afghani standards. They were talking about a road to be build, and promising jobs for the locals.
Yet it was absolutely clear that these villagers did not even share the concept of a "job". They were goat herders mostly, and possibly some farmers. I'd bet that not one of them is a wage-earning employee or worker. They simply tend to their family's animals.
"Trade" is probably understood in these places, "jobs" is not. They tried to win over the local population with promises entirely based on an American POV.
In larger cities, such promises might have had a better chance to succeed. But I think it's instructive to look at the only people whose "hearts & minds^ the US actually managed to win: translators and other local employees tend to be the US' most ardent supporters. That's maybe due to the money they got, yes. And there's some selection bias at play, as well. But if I had to guess, I'd say simple, honest day-to-day social contact had the most influence.
I think the Us military should form a brigade entirely made up of hippies that can play instruments, like to talk to strangers, can play soccer and basketball, grow weed, and are good petting dogs and getting children to smile.
It is probably hard to convince people of the benefits of democracy while killing those people, inadvertently or otherwise.
Doesn't the fact that this is another step towards autonomous killing machines complicate your view of this?
A lot of Silicon Valley's justification for its immoral actions rests on the _belief_ of the inevitability of outcomes. It's ok to monopolize and centralize everything, discarding the lives of people who are negatively impacted because it's inevitable. It's ok to make robots able to kill people better because it's inevitable, etc.
The thing is, it's a _belief_ that this is inevitable — not a proven fact of nature. And people who don't believe in it will logically withdraw their cooperation from building that future.
Both sides are 'proving' their point of view. If enough people object, then it wasn't inevitable after all. If enough people work to bring us into that future, maybe it was. But thats the struggle and moral choice we face.
A lot of Silicon Valley's justification for its immoral actions rests on the _belief_ of the inevitability of outcomes. It's ok to monopolize and centralize everything, discarding the lives of people who are negatively impacted because it's inevitable. It's ok to make robots able to kill people better because it's inevitable, etc.
The thing is, it's a _belief_ that this is inevitable — not a proven fact of nature. And people who don't believe in it will logically withdraw their cooperation from building that future.
Both sides are 'proving' their point of view. If enough people object, then it wasn't inevitable after all. If enough people work to bring us into that future, maybe it was. But thats the struggle and moral choice we face.
I find it pretty easy to believe that other countries will continue to funnel money into military operations even if the US slows or stops.
No, I can't prove that. But it seems like a very reasonable belief to have. What reason do you have to believe that it won't be so?
No, I can't prove that. But it seems like a very reasonable belief to have. What reason do you have to believe that it won't be so?
The reason to believe it won't be so is the same reason not all tragedies of the common end in resource exhaustion - cooperation is possible, especially in such an internationally-connected industry as software development.
From a less grassroots perspective, international regulations and sanctions tend to be fairly effective.
From a less grassroots perspective, international regulations and sanctions tend to be fairly effective.
The free world does have enemies! We must seek them out!
This feels like Begging the Question - your post implies that AI targeting will:
A) not be developed without support from Google, which is categorically untrue; The DoD might simply find it more difficult to acquire top talent if that talent is opposed to the work on philosophical grounds.
And B) be necessary for the US military to remain the most advanced and/or powerful in 20 years, which is also exceptionally doubtful - unless you believe ML to have such effective wartime applications as to render a nearly threefold larger military budget (compared to China, the next largest) moot.
A) not be developed without support from Google, which is categorically untrue; The DoD might simply find it more difficult to acquire top talent if that talent is opposed to the work on philosophical grounds.
And B) be necessary for the US military to remain the most advanced and/or powerful in 20 years, which is also exceptionally doubtful - unless you believe ML to have such effective wartime applications as to render a nearly threefold larger military budget (compared to China, the next largest) moot.
After a certain point it's irrelevant. Soviets developed the Tsar Bomba; should the US have tried to one up them?
We did one up them, over and over again - just with strategies other than "make one bigger bomb".
Really? How? You can say that world has more impact due to US's military, but how has russia been one uped ever?
There's a crap ton of tech in the military world, and the US is generally the most advanced at a lot of it. Both public knowledge (F-22/F-35, THAAD, aircraft carriers) and all the other sorts of crap - satellites/surveillance tech, software (stuxnet), whatever. The arms race never stopped, it's just not about making singularly bigger bombs anymore, because they're plenty big to destroy the whole planet many times over.
The US isn't spending 800 billion a year on nothing.
The US isn't spending 800 billion a year on nothing.
The US did it with significantly fewer bullets to the back of necks & babies going hungry.
There's certainly enough opportunity to work for a more peaceful world instead - scenarios where two large military powers clash should probably better be avoided anyway, so it's probably even a more productive use of one's time than optimizing for yet another variant of mutually assured destruction.
Pacifism is all well and good when the other guy doesn't want to kill you. Until we get to that point, I'm happy with the US policy of having an overwhelmingly dominant force as a deterrent.
None. I would like most of them to stay unadvanced.
This sums up the entire event in one sentence. Deflecting the question and continue to live in some inconsistent bubble.
There will always be one most advanced though.
I don't particularly care.
Nukes are enough to stop any war from happening between any of the most powerful countries in the world.
What else do we even need?
The various factions in the various civil wars around the world can kill themselves in their own war, and we shouldn't be a part of it killing even more people.
Nukes are enough to stop any war from happening between any of the most powerful countries in the world.
What else do we even need?
The various factions in the various civil wars around the world can kill themselves in their own war, and we shouldn't be a part of it killing even more people.
What about smaller countries without the nukes? Fall to the next door neighbour, regardless if you like their regime or not?
> Google Workers Urge C.E.O. To Pull Out of Pentagon A.I. Project
That moment when you realize your mega-corp employer's "culture" is merely just another tool to get your to do their bidding.
How do the share holders feel? I'm sure they're betting that almost every employee will stay no matter how their technology is used.
That moment when you realize your mega-corp employer's "culture" is merely just another tool to get your to do their bidding.
How do the share holders feel? I'm sure they're betting that almost every employee will stay no matter how their technology is used.
Attractiveness as an employer is among Google's top priorities. If this research is a significant concern to their employees, and starts to have an effect on their image and new recruiting, they are almost certain to drop it, considering it's unlikely to bring in revenue that's significant at Google's size.
To put a number on it: I am absolutely certain that Facebook would be willing right now to sacrifice 25% of their revenue for a bump in their reputation (among developers only) that puts them at Google's level.
To put a number on it: I am absolutely certain that Facebook would be willing right now to sacrifice 25% of their revenue for a bump in their reputation (among developers only) that puts them at Google's level.
Given more than 70% of ownership is by investors, I have to disagree. These aren't companies or people interested in Facebook's reputation among employees, they're interested in the stock price.
Yes, it's beneficial to have more talent and better PR if they were to do that - but I'd say it's much easier to spend 1B/yr on positive PR and influencing developers than it is to lose out on 10B in revenue and 4B in profit (based on their 2017 numbers).
Yes, it's beneficial to have more talent and better PR if they were to do that - but I'd say it's much easier to spend 1B/yr on positive PR and influencing developers than it is to lose out on 10B in revenue and 4B in profit (based on their 2017 numbers).
Indeed, they know few to none of these petitioners will quit. 3,000 petition signatures will do nothing. 3,000 resignations would, but Googlers aren't going to pass up on the high paychecks, three five-star meals a day, and massages in the office based on moral grounds.
(In the same vein, Google's NetPAC has been quietly donating the max to Republicans like Paul Ryan and Steve Scalise, while most of their engineers openly oppose them.)
(In the same vein, Google's NetPAC has been quietly donating the max to Republicans like Paul Ryan and Steve Scalise, while most of their engineers openly oppose them.)
I know at least one Googler who really will quit if Google continues to contribute to drone warfare research.
Yes, they like the high paychecks, five-star meals and massages, but the market for ML and AI experts is very strong right now. The high paycheck can be matched elsewhere, and the benefits of not contributing to drone warfare research are worth spending a bit of that money on food and massages.
But as I said, I only know of one for sure. Whether or not there are enough to sway Google is yet to be seen.
Yes, they like the high paychecks, five-star meals and massages, but the market for ML and AI experts is very strong right now. The high paycheck can be matched elsewhere, and the benefits of not contributing to drone warfare research are worth spending a bit of that money on food and massages.
But as I said, I only know of one for sure. Whether or not there are enough to sway Google is yet to be seen.
This is good to hear, even in a single-person capacity.
Respect to that one Googler. But are those 3000 in the category of experts which would hurt Google if they leave.
I am doubtful that paycheck can be match elsewhere in companies which are more morally upright than Google. However if it is single issue protest about military but acts regarding user data usage, financial, environmental or other type of dodgy behavior is okay then these people can definitely move on to different employers.
I am doubtful that paycheck can be match elsewhere in companies which are more morally upright than Google. However if it is single issue protest about military but acts regarding user data usage, financial, environmental or other type of dodgy behavior is okay then these people can definitely move on to different employers.
Any three thousand people leaving would be a huge hit. There's massive retraining costs and inefficiencies with lost knowledge, even if you could extremely quickly hire 3,000 qualified replacements above their existing hiring rate. The article does suggest some very senior names are signatories, but obviously doesn't disclose who.
I know multiple people who work at Google that are quitting because of this. Lots of people have lines in the sand when it comes to violence and military work, but those lines are deep for a reason and they don't really want to talk about them so you'd never know.
> are quitting
Do you mean these people have handed in notices or are planning on quitting in the next day or so? Or do you mean these people are considering quitting if google doesn't change its ways? Or do you mean "Some people I know are saying that they will quit" but have no short term plan for actually quitting?
Quitting a job over an ethical issue doesn't take long. It goes like this: "I quit!"
And then, those people are no longer 'quitting' but now have become 'have quit.'
Do you mean these people have handed in notices or are planning on quitting in the next day or so? Or do you mean these people are considering quitting if google doesn't change its ways? Or do you mean "Some people I know are saying that they will quit" but have no short term plan for actually quitting?
Quitting a job over an ethical issue doesn't take long. It goes like this: "I quit!"
And then, those people are no longer 'quitting' but now have become 'have quit.'
That’s convenient.
That a tech worker on a tech website knows some people at a major tech company? Guess what I know people that work at almost every tech company you've heard of, that's what happens when you get old.
Try just going to eat at the Pho place across the street from Google in Boulder sometime, you'll hear people openly complaining about Sundar and Susan and chatting about their latest projects at full volume without a care in the world.
Try just going to eat at the Pho place across the street from Google in Boulder sometime, you'll hear people openly complaining about Sundar and Susan and chatting about their latest projects at full volume without a care in the world.
I assume the parent meant that it was convenient they didn't talk about the topic, or that you couldn't give examples. Most everyone on HN knows a lot of people at major tech companies.
Anyways, we'll see what happens, if the company doesn't give in perhaps we will see some more "why I quit Google" blogs down the road.
Anyways, we'll see what happens, if the company doesn't give in perhaps we will see some more "why I quit Google" blogs down the road.
That’s generally not how collective bargaining works. After petition, the next step would be a strike, not mass resignations. Then if there is no resolution between management and labor, there will be terminations and regulations.
Perhaps before going to premature conclusions, it might be worthwhile to wait and see how management reacts.
Perhaps before going to premature conclusions, it might be worthwhile to wait and see how management reacts.
There really isn't a formal structure for this yet, is there? AFAIK, Googlers aren't unionized, though I definitely know a few interested that are in being so.
I am also curious if you know of prior examples of strikes being on moral grounds, I usually associate a strike with demands for employee rights or compensation, not corporate behavior.
This starts to move past the edge of my zone of knowledge, I've never been union, my knowledge of them is relatively basic.
I am also curious if you know of prior examples of strikes being on moral grounds, I usually associate a strike with demands for employee rights or compensation, not corporate behavior.
This starts to move past the edge of my zone of knowledge, I've never been union, my knowledge of them is relatively basic.
There have been many strikes on moral grounds, maybe most of them. Unions were invented as much for civil rights as they were for worker's rights. Martin Luther King basically went around the South organising and staging strikes. Civil rights couldn't have been won otherwise.
I for one would rather have a drone strike program that actually actively avoids civilian casualties as much as possible. There are certainly gray areas here as far as the use of that program from a political standpoint (whether the strikes are warranted or whether it is part of regime changes). On the other hand, by not helping the military become more efficient we also risk losing existing lives (our own and civilian casualties) due to a lack of efficient analysis. We already use statistical analysis and many other methods (human and otherwise) to determine where to make military strikes, might as well improve on this to make fewer mistakes where possible (as gray as that may seem).
I am not able to understand because I'm stuck at "the government uses autonomous robots to kill people extra-judiciously with missiles from the sky and nobody seems to care."
And you want to make the program "more efficient."
This is the gulf which I cannot seem to bridge.
Extra-judicial killings of "terrorists" in "bad places" using flying killer robots is just batshit insane to me. I cannot for the life of me understand how that conversation would go with, e.g. Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton. Or really anyone who believes in human rights.
And you want to make the program "more efficient."
This is the gulf which I cannot seem to bridge.
Extra-judicial killings of "terrorists" in "bad places" using flying killer robots is just batshit insane to me. I cannot for the life of me understand how that conversation would go with, e.g. Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton. Or really anyone who believes in human rights.
[deleted]
Why do you refer to them as extra-judicial killings?
A non-military entity (the CIA), which should not be operating military hardware (but does), assassinates targets without due process (or really, any hard evidence at all), in countries we aren't at war with (formally or otherwise). Depending on our relationship with the country in question, we may or may not bother to let that country know we're going to kill some of their citizens ahead of time.
Putting aside moral issues with the CIA, what's the legal reason that they should not be operating military hardware?
As far as I know, CIA assassinations of foreign citizens aren't illegal as long as they take place outside of the US.
There was at least one instance of a drone strike killing one or two American citizens which is definitely extra-judicial. Most drone strikes do not kill American citizens so referring to drone strikes in general as extra-judicial doesn't seem accurate to me.
I would like to clarify that I don't necessarily think that the US's use of drone strikes is morally correct. I just think it's not correct to refer to it as extra-judicial.
As far as I know, CIA assassinations of foreign citizens aren't illegal as long as they take place outside of the US.
There was at least one instance of a drone strike killing one or two American citizens which is definitely extra-judicial. Most drone strikes do not kill American citizens so referring to drone strikes in general as extra-judicial doesn't seem accurate to me.
I would like to clarify that I don't necessarily think that the US's use of drone strikes is morally correct. I just think it's not correct to refer to it as extra-judicial.
It certainly is illegal in the country in which they do it. As far as I know, pretty much all foreign intelligence work is technically illegal where it's conducted.
That is technically true but I do not think that's what the original poster meant by "extra-judicial".
Because there was no involvement of the judiciary system. See the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, and more to the point, his son. Oh, and also his daughter now, I guess.
I'm familiar with that specific case but it's an exception to the rule. The OP seems to think that extra-judicial killings by drone strike are a common occurrence and the evidence does not support that.
I'm not saying I support it from a moral standpoint but I don't think it's fair to call them extra-judicial except in a few cases.
I'm not saying I support it from a moral standpoint but I don't think it's fair to call them extra-judicial except in a few cases.
> I'm familiar with that specific case but it's an exception to the rule. The OP seems to think that extra-judicial killings by drone strike are a common occurrence and the evidence does not support that.
No, it is the rule.
Drone strikes are incredibly high in collateral damage. The estimate is 28 unidentified people for each 1 target;
https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_ki...
No, it is the rule.
Drone strikes are incredibly high in collateral damage. The estimate is 28 unidentified people for each 1 target;
https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_ki...
I'm fairly sure the push-back to this kind of point is thus: if you make it less costly (in the form of "civilian" lives, money, or whatever measure) to do drone strikes, more people are killed overall. Our government hasn't exactly been good about reporting casualties from strikes or careful in targeting (a group of people gathered outside of a city may just be considered up-to-no-good and bombed).
So they’re already careless, but with better targeting they would be even worse? How does that work?
I wouldn't. The end-game of having governments with the hyper-selective power to kill a particular individual is not pretty. This is the sort of thing that we want to keep expensive as long as possible, not cheaper and easier.
> I for one would rather have a drone strike program that actually actively avoids civilian casualties as much as possible.
Then “AI” should be the least of your worries. Not everything is a software problem.
Then “AI” should be the least of your worries. Not everything is a software problem.
I believe that is the point of his comment.
The DoD is not interested in using their budget to reduce their number of civilian "casualties".
Their only intention here is to scale up their drone programs.
Their only intention here is to scale up their drone programs.
I'm not sure there's a definitive answer right now as to whether drone strikes or more conventional options have higher civilian casualty rates.
That doesn't make any sense. If they wanted to scale up the program, they'd use the money to buy more drones and bombs, not invest in better eyes.
> buy more drones and bombs
Which is exactly what they have been doing since day one, but to keep growing they need some help to make these robots a bit more autonomous.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/drone-pilots-ar...
Which is exactly what they have been doing since day one, but to keep growing they need some help to make these robots a bit more autonomous.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/drone-pilots-ar...
why not both?
The current approach to reducing civilian casualties in airstrikes is to label any man above 18 as a combatant by default.
You must love those weapons from the Slaughterbots video then https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA
Do you also love the other implications?
Yes and thoroughly yes. Because our military's allegiance is to the Constitution not to any single executive administration; because the military have far more resources to purchase bots or counterbots than the police do; and because only an idiot would actually have that tech and yet fail to also have, at minimum, an equally-maneuverable ablative countermeasure drone.
That's like saying only an idiot would have a nuke and not have a counter weapon for a nuke. It's not a given at all.
The video implies that people will have to hide behind iron curtains for (partial) security.
As usual, the devil is in the details. These are drones, not nukes. Nukes have effects for miles away and are so powerful that their detonations cannot be shaped at all; whereas suicide-drones have to fly directly to their target and reach it intact.
The same amount of shaped-explosive that can crack a skull, can neutralize one of these drones. As such, the braindead countermeasure is to retarget these same drones at the stolen drones. At worst, the IFF radios might add a negligible amount of mass ... but that won't matter for long, because once the enemy knows you're deploying counterdrones, they'll need their own IFF radios in order to try to avoid your counterdrones. (Or the enemy could add armor to their drones, but that will make them massive/unmaneuverable enough that you can increase your counterdrones' explosive payload to penetrate their armor, while still being able to intercept them.)
If you're looking for historical analogy, try military aviation in general. During the first World War, bomber planes would have been game-changing ... if not that there were fighters, too. A slaughterbot is a bomber; a slaughterbot that seeks the enemy's slaughterbots is a fighter.
The same amount of shaped-explosive that can crack a skull, can neutralize one of these drones. As such, the braindead countermeasure is to retarget these same drones at the stolen drones. At worst, the IFF radios might add a negligible amount of mass ... but that won't matter for long, because once the enemy knows you're deploying counterdrones, they'll need their own IFF radios in order to try to avoid your counterdrones. (Or the enemy could add armor to their drones, but that will make them massive/unmaneuverable enough that you can increase your counterdrones' explosive payload to penetrate their armor, while still being able to intercept them.)
If you're looking for historical analogy, try military aviation in general. During the first World War, bomber planes would have been game-changing ... if not that there were fighters, too. A slaughterbot is a bomber; a slaughterbot that seeks the enemy's slaughterbots is a fighter.
While I appreciate the engineers speaking out, it isn't really practical for a company the size of Google, with the resources it has, to not have programs that work with the military in one form or another.
If, as an engineer, it is against your moral code to do any work that supports the military, your choices are limited to working in small companies where everyone is focused on the commercial products and services you are delivering. And even then, as some games companies found out, the CEO might do some collaborative work with the military for training or something.
It should come as no surprise that Google teams up with the Federal government on things.
If, as an engineer, it is against your moral code to do any work that supports the military, your choices are limited to working in small companies where everyone is focused on the commercial products and services you are delivering. And even then, as some games companies found out, the CEO might do some collaborative work with the military for training or something.
It should come as no surprise that Google teams up with the Federal government on things.
> While I appreciate the engineers speaking out, it isn't really practical for a company the size of Google, with the resources it has, to not have programs that work with the military in one form or another.
This is nonsense, Google has plenty of revenue and other non-defense avenues for growth.
Companies are not beholden to chase every last dollar, especially if it could alienate their workforce.
I don't have the same anti-defense leanings as others around here, but to say Google has no choice is ridiculous.
Google probably couldn't (and shouldn't IMO) stop the DoD using Android phones if they want to, but they can certainly refuse to work with the defense sector.
This is nonsense, Google has plenty of revenue and other non-defense avenues for growth.
Companies are not beholden to chase every last dollar, especially if it could alienate their workforce.
I don't have the same anti-defense leanings as others around here, but to say Google has no choice is ridiculous.
Google probably couldn't (and shouldn't IMO) stop the DoD using Android phones if they want to, but they can certainly refuse to work with the defense sector.
Well, they sort of became beholden when they became publicly traded and exchanged Do No Evil for Maximize Shareholder Returns.
I agree with you somewhat, but I imagine the shareholders would revolt against upper-management from the significant loss in revenue + media backlash that would be inevitable ("Google hates the US government!" etc etc.)
As a comparison, imagine if Tim Cook took a stronger privacy stance in China that we have in the states on moral grounds, and the result was China banning all Apple sales there. He would be tossed immediately, even though most of the comments here would be in support of the ethical position.
As a comparison, imagine if Tim Cook took a stronger privacy stance in China that we have in the states on moral grounds, and the result was China banning all Apple sales there. He would be tossed immediately, even though most of the comments here would be in support of the ethical position.
1) The shareholders are part of Google.
2) A very small group of people control all the votes in Google, thanks to different classes of shares. While this is not foolproof, courts rarely overrule decisions.
3) You can incur in loss of revenue too if a non-insignificant part of your workforce is resentful.
2) A very small group of people control all the votes in Google, thanks to different classes of shares. While this is not foolproof, courts rarely overrule decisions.
3) You can incur in loss of revenue too if a non-insignificant part of your workforce is resentful.
> it isn't really practical for a company the size of Google, with the resources it has, to not have programs that work with the military in one form or another
Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily imply that Google can't pick and choose what technology it sells or provides to the military. They can, for example, serve the administrative needs of the military (e.g. Google Apps), but not necessarily provide technology that directly improves their weaponry.
Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily imply that Google can't pick and choose what technology it sells or provides to the military. They can, for example, serve the administrative needs of the military (e.g. Google Apps), but not necessarily provide technology that directly improves their weaponry.
There is a joke that goes like this;
The richest man in town calls up the local newspaper and complains that he didn't get the store coupons in this week's Sunday supplement. The clerk responds, "Why do you care about the coupons? You're the richest man in town!" Then he responds, "How do you think I got to be so rich?"
Several things come into play in these scenarios.
In Google's case it makes essentially no actual money on "Google Brain", sure it gets headlines for beating Go, sure it attracts top talent (that needs to be paid!) and it still gives those folks free lunches and nice office space etc. So anything that offsets that expense is good.
And in Google, for all of its "lavish" perks, is a penny pincher like our rich man in the story. One of the stories when I was working there, they used to have a brand name juice cases where you could pick up any of the varieties of juice or smoothies that they made. The smoothies were very popular. Then one day out of the blue they swapped them for a different, and by every measure, inferior brand and fewer choices. There were lots of stories about why they switched, but after a lot of internal debate and investigation, the reason was that the replacements were cheaper (by about 25 cents each on their most expensive smoothie as I recall). It angered a lot of employees and one allegedly quit over it (well technically they called it the latest in a string of bad choices). The cost savings, assuming that every employee drank a case of their most expensive smoothie every day (which would represent an upper bound) was about $18M. That was 1% of the quarterly free cash flow (money that had been deposited into cash after all other uses). All of that pain for what was sure less than $18M in "savings".
The third factor is dual use. Sure you can use AI research into interpreting images to build killer robots that can identify and assassinate only those targets you specify. But you can also use it to pick out where the roadway has changed subtly indicating a roadside bomb, or a hazard that a self driving car should avoid, etc.
When you combine these three factors; one that AI team is just overhead, two the corporate willingness to alienate and possibly lose some of their employees over saving a nickel, and the ability to rationalize any number of non-evil uses for the technology, you get a recipe where of course they will sell things to the government without any regard to how that technology will be used. Just look at their main business, selling advertising. They just "sell ads" even when those ads are promoting illegal or unethical acts by consumers whether it is payday loans or Canadian pharmacies. Only when the FTC comes in and tells them to stop do they stop, not through some inner altruism.
The richest man in town calls up the local newspaper and complains that he didn't get the store coupons in this week's Sunday supplement. The clerk responds, "Why do you care about the coupons? You're the richest man in town!" Then he responds, "How do you think I got to be so rich?"
Several things come into play in these scenarios.
In Google's case it makes essentially no actual money on "Google Brain", sure it gets headlines for beating Go, sure it attracts top talent (that needs to be paid!) and it still gives those folks free lunches and nice office space etc. So anything that offsets that expense is good.
And in Google, for all of its "lavish" perks, is a penny pincher like our rich man in the story. One of the stories when I was working there, they used to have a brand name juice cases where you could pick up any of the varieties of juice or smoothies that they made. The smoothies were very popular. Then one day out of the blue they swapped them for a different, and by every measure, inferior brand and fewer choices. There were lots of stories about why they switched, but after a lot of internal debate and investigation, the reason was that the replacements were cheaper (by about 25 cents each on their most expensive smoothie as I recall). It angered a lot of employees and one allegedly quit over it (well technically they called it the latest in a string of bad choices). The cost savings, assuming that every employee drank a case of their most expensive smoothie every day (which would represent an upper bound) was about $18M. That was 1% of the quarterly free cash flow (money that had been deposited into cash after all other uses). All of that pain for what was sure less than $18M in "savings".
The third factor is dual use. Sure you can use AI research into interpreting images to build killer robots that can identify and assassinate only those targets you specify. But you can also use it to pick out where the roadway has changed subtly indicating a roadside bomb, or a hazard that a self driving car should avoid, etc.
When you combine these three factors; one that AI team is just overhead, two the corporate willingness to alienate and possibly lose some of their employees over saving a nickel, and the ability to rationalize any number of non-evil uses for the technology, you get a recipe where of course they will sell things to the government without any regard to how that technology will be used. Just look at their main business, selling advertising. They just "sell ads" even when those ads are promoting illegal or unethical acts by consumers whether it is payday loans or Canadian pharmacies. Only when the FTC comes in and tells them to stop do they stop, not through some inner altruism.
Business Ethics is the art of finding a company whose ethics are close enough to your own.
Asking the business to reconsider before leaving is legitimate.
Asking the business to reconsider before leaving is legitimate.
This has been by far one of the most shameful things Google has done.
And their excuse that "they're only analyzing images" is a joke. Analyzing the images and "identifying objects" (their words) is probably 95-99% of the job in a drone strike. So if they're trying to make people think that their role is minimal in drone strikes, they're failing hard at that.
I also think Eric Schimidt, who until last December was both Alphabet Chairman and working for the Pentagon, played a big role in this. Now he's still a "technical advisor" but if he continues working for the Pentagon I'd prefer he has no official affiliation with Alphabet.
It seems Schmidt would like Google/Alphabet and Pentagon to have a much deeper relationship, if you can read between the lines in this post:
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/01/pentagon-needs-...
And their excuse that "they're only analyzing images" is a joke. Analyzing the images and "identifying objects" (their words) is probably 95-99% of the job in a drone strike. So if they're trying to make people think that their role is minimal in drone strikes, they're failing hard at that.
I also think Eric Schimidt, who until last December was both Alphabet Chairman and working for the Pentagon, played a big role in this. Now he's still a "technical advisor" but if he continues working for the Pentagon I'd prefer he has no official affiliation with Alphabet.
It seems Schmidt would like Google/Alphabet and Pentagon to have a much deeper relationship, if you can read between the lines in this post:
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/01/pentagon-needs-...
So, honest question, what's worse, helping the military be more accurate in who they attack, or abstaining and perhaps there are more mistakes, and/or collateral damage as they choose the best times/locations to strike that they can find, not the best that could be found. On the one hand, your involvement might help limit "innocent" deaths. On the other, a more effective system might see more use, so more people overall might be killed (and it might lead to more "innocent" deaths than otherwise, even if they are a reduced percentage of the total). Additionally, there's no guarantee that other actors are not developing the same technology, and it could either be obtained by the government through them, or used against the government and its citizens by them, reducing overall safety.
Take, for example, RADAR. Should those that developed RADAR, during or just prior to WWII, and abstained because of its possible wartime use? Wikipedia says "In the 1934–1939 period, eight nations developed independently, and in great secrecy, systems of this type"[1], so those that were left out faced a real danger in the coming years if they didn't have something to compete. Yet, RADAR has been used to great effect in many weapon systems and by many countries since WWII in ways that that most would agree are horrible. Then again, it's made commercial air travel much safer than we could have hoped to achieve at this scale without RADAR.
It's a complex situation, and I think it deserves a complex discussion. Distilling it to "working with the government is bad because I don't like what the government is doing" doesn't really do it justice.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radar
Take, for example, RADAR. Should those that developed RADAR, during or just prior to WWII, and abstained because of its possible wartime use? Wikipedia says "In the 1934–1939 period, eight nations developed independently, and in great secrecy, systems of this type"[1], so those that were left out faced a real danger in the coming years if they didn't have something to compete. Yet, RADAR has been used to great effect in many weapon systems and by many countries since WWII in ways that that most would agree are horrible. Then again, it's made commercial air travel much safer than we could have hoped to achieve at this scale without RADAR.
It's a complex situation, and I think it deserves a complex discussion. Distilling it to "working with the government is bad because I don't like what the government is doing" doesn't really do it justice.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radar
Research for the military isn't the issue here, it's Google's changing agenda.
If the DoD or Raytheon or Weapons Systems Startup LLC hired someone to develop a better system for analyzing drone images, I don't believe that person would be complaining that their work was being used for war -- that's exactly what they signed up for.
The problem here is that Google sold their engineers on "Don't Be Evil" and libertarianism and "we're a sweet little tech company that people like" and is now delivering military contracts.
If the DoD or Raytheon or Weapons Systems Startup LLC hired someone to develop a better system for analyzing drone images, I don't believe that person would be complaining that their work was being used for war -- that's exactly what they signed up for.
The problem here is that Google sold their engineers on "Don't Be Evil" and libertarianism and "we're a sweet little tech company that people like" and is now delivering military contracts.
Engineers have a right to complain, and to attempt to steer the company, and to leave if they don't like where it's going. I'm more referencing the parent comment that calls Google out as shameful. Not all military work is shameful, and some that is viewed one way initially might be viewed otherwise over time as future uses are found for the fruits of that labor.
> The problem here is that Google sold their engineers on "Don't Be Evil" and libertarianism and "we're a sweet little tech company that people like" and is now delivering military contracts.
And they specifically dropped that when they changed to Alphabet, so the writing was on the wall for people to see. That said, I still think the immediate jump to military work == shameful is far too broad a brush to paint with. What if a contract was for better field medical kits? That's still going to help any military engagement for one side, but does keeping one side's soldiers in better health so they can kill more the other side make it okay? What about future public uses of the technology?
The world isn't that simple, and people acting like it is just so they have an easy target for their anger doesn't really help anything other than to make that person feel a little better about themselves for a little while.
> The problem here is that Google sold their engineers on "Don't Be Evil" and libertarianism and "we're a sweet little tech company that people like" and is now delivering military contracts.
And they specifically dropped that when they changed to Alphabet, so the writing was on the wall for people to see. That said, I still think the immediate jump to military work == shameful is far too broad a brush to paint with. What if a contract was for better field medical kits? That's still going to help any military engagement for one side, but does keeping one side's soldiers in better health so they can kill more the other side make it okay? What about future public uses of the technology?
The world isn't that simple, and people acting like it is just so they have an easy target for their anger doesn't really help anything other than to make that person feel a little better about themselves for a little while.
> And they specifically dropped that when they changed to Alphabet, so the writing was on the wall for people to see
Still there actually. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
Still there actually. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
> The problem here is that Google sold their engineers on "Don't Be Evil" and libertarianism and "we're a sweet little tech company that people like" and is now delivering military contracts.
I'm not sure I ever felt Google was libertarian but maybe I just don't understand what that means?
Your comment makes me think this might be a strange viewpoint, but I don't consider "don't be evil" and military contracts to be mutually exclusive. I consider the military to be necessary. Perhaps one day we can live in a world where it won't be, but we are very far from that now, and given we can't even stop people within our own country from killing one another, I don't believe we will be able to stop other countries from invading us if they have nothing to deter them.
Do you consider the people who join the military to also be evil?
I'm not sure I ever felt Google was libertarian but maybe I just don't understand what that means?
Your comment makes me think this might be a strange viewpoint, but I don't consider "don't be evil" and military contracts to be mutually exclusive. I consider the military to be necessary. Perhaps one day we can live in a world where it won't be, but we are very far from that now, and given we can't even stop people within our own country from killing one another, I don't believe we will be able to stop other countries from invading us if they have nothing to deter them.
Do you consider the people who join the military to also be evil?
So is it simply per se shameful to develop technology for the military, or is there a more nuanced moral argument that this sentiment comes from?
Or is there something specific to Google's Maven project that makes it shameful, while other types of military commissioned projects might not be?
Or is there something specific to Google's Maven project that makes it shameful, while other types of military commissioned projects might not be?
Slightly more nuanced. I think there is a clear difference between, say, selling food to the military (the service you provide generally allows the military to run better and the military is frequently responsible for killing people) versus selling bullets to the military (the service you provide allows the military to kill people).
Weapons-targeting systems clearly falls into the latter category. I've worked on military-funded projects for machine translation and I don't feel guilty about that. I would not work on projects (military-funded or otherwise) that were used for targeting. I think that my position is internally-consistent.
Weapons-targeting systems clearly falls into the latter category. I've worked on military-funded projects for machine translation and I don't feel guilty about that. I would not work on projects (military-funded or otherwise) that were used for targeting. I think that my position is internally-consistent.
Fair points. I think I agree with you that there is a distinction to be made between say, selling food and making bullets - the latter being a direct tool of violence.
Its perfectly reasonable for a person to decide they would rather not spend their short time on earth developing such tools (especially if it would be easy for bad actors to abuse them). I suppose that is the objection many Googlers are making.
Its perfectly reasonable for a person to decide they would rather not spend their short time on earth developing such tools (especially if it would be easy for bad actors to abuse them). I suppose that is the objection many Googlers are making.
IMHO, it's a specific problem of our drone program. It's being used often for a civilian agency (the CIA) to use military hardware to conduct assassinations of various individuals overseas in countries we are not even at war with.
And then there's the fact that we've killed hundreds of children with it. It's hard not to view everyone involved with the program as guilty of war crimes.
I don't have a problem with our military in a general sense, or even the idea of using drones to keep our pilots out of harm's way.
And then there's the fact that we've killed hundreds of children with it. It's hard not to view everyone involved with the program as guilty of war crimes.
I don't have a problem with our military in a general sense, or even the idea of using drones to keep our pilots out of harm's way.
So, war is still going to be a thing regardless of what position Google takes. Would you rather have less concerned engineers delivering a subpar product? Suppose because the technology is not as good, it misidentifies innocent civilians as targets. Is it "shameful" for Google to develop this software, or to cover their eyes and pretend this isn't happening to avoid bad PR?
> In an interview in November, Mr. Schmidt acknowledged “a general concern in the tech community of somehow the military-industrial complex using their stuff to kill people incorrectly, if you will.” He said he served on the board in part “to at least allow for communications to occur” and suggested that the military would “use this technology to help keep the country safe.”
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Schmidt's views on what constitutes "killing people incorrectly" and what is required to "keep this country safe" both differ fairly significantly from those of the signatories of the letter.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Schmidt's views on what constitutes "killing people incorrectly" and what is required to "keep this country safe" both differ fairly significantly from those of the signatories of the letter.
That is some menacing language. What exactly is the right way to kill a person.
In self defense? In defense of others?
Those are considered cases where killing someone is legitimate by almost everyone.
Those are considered cases where killing someone is legitimate by almost everyone.
America Defends itself and others with Predators. Power loves rubbing your face in these kinds of absurdities.
If only we could all agree who's life matters the most. That would be great =P
I am against war and violence but even a cursory review of the last 10k years of human history make it abundantly clear that the threat Iran, North Korea or Russia pose to the Western World is real. I hate many of the things the US has done but I'm glad the world is not controlled by even worse actors. The sole reason for US and UN dominance is military power. If we ignore this the West will be overrun.
If you're an engineer working for Google, I think you can most likely afford to be an idealist, and in my opinion that's a much better option than just blindly following orders.
Don't most of us want less war? Does it really drive you to enhance the capabilities of those committing acts of violence? How does one start to believe that by supporting the military you are somehow working towards a better world?
If you're not going to be an idealist, then in all likelihood you're helping to work towards the vision of an idealist with more power than you.
Don't most of us want less war? Does it really drive you to enhance the capabilities of those committing acts of violence? How does one start to believe that by supporting the military you are somehow working towards a better world?
If you're not going to be an idealist, then in all likelihood you're helping to work towards the vision of an idealist with more power than you.
I think the problem can stem from the urge for everyone to try and find the exact same ideal world. It's so obviously clear that this is impossible, and so obvious that there is no civil way for anyone to enforce an ideology across a massive population.
IMO, the best hope is for each man to pursue their ideal world for themselves. What else can we really control?
The famous public letter from Norbert Wiener declaring he will not work for the military: http://lanl-the-back-story.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-scientist-...
Maybe if they were more accurate they would kill less people?
Maybe if they're more accurate the marginal cost of killing people in other parts of the world will go down even more so we'll be even less likely to reflect on whether the fact we can easily use robots to kill people on the other side of the world who have no way of responding symmetrically might come back to bite us in the ass?
But now you're arguing that we need to kill more innocents in order to drum up support for political change. That's cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Drone strikes aren't going away, especially since there is widespread support among the American public for them (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-...). Thus, we should pursue both fronts: making drone strikes more safe, but also informing the public about the potential shortfalls and dangers of using such technologies.
The idea that making technology more sophisticated will inevitably increase its usage is a fallacy. Nuclear weapons technology improved substantially over the 20th century, and yet it still hasn't been used since 1945.
Drone strikes aren't going away, especially since there is widespread support among the American public for them (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-...). Thus, we should pursue both fronts: making drone strikes more safe, but also informing the public about the potential shortfalls and dangers of using such technologies.
The idea that making technology more sophisticated will inevitably increase its usage is a fallacy. Nuclear weapons technology improved substantially over the 20th century, and yet it still hasn't been used since 1945.
Nobody cares how many dimes those drones cost. War isn’t fought using the cheapest means available, but the most effective. Have you seen the size of the U.S. military budget?
This country will continue to meddle in international affairs and, on occasion, get involved in bloody battles. Such is life. War is an integral part of our civilization and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. You can’t just wish it away.
This country will continue to meddle in international affairs and, on occasion, get involved in bloody battles. Such is life. War is an integral part of our civilization and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. You can’t just wish it away.
Wrong attitude. It seems that, at this time in history, we have more tools at our disposal than ever before to avoid war. We have more capacity to organize and communicate now. Why should we continue to just assume that war is inevitable? I'm sure people had the same attitude toward the black plague in the middle ages. They probably thought "Oh well! All this bad air and holy wrath is inevitable. No way to avoid the plague!"
You're right about everything. But consider ISIS, what kind of communication should we perform that will make future groups like that stop beheading people and raping children? There are situations where violence unfortunately is the only option left, and in that case you will want it to be as targeted and clean as possible to avoid collateral damage. Currently drone strikes is the best tech for that purpose, and we have an incentive to make it better for the reasons previously mentioned.
If the US only were using drones against ISIS then that would be a different story. The fact of the matter is that the US uses drones on much less morally cut-and-dry groups than ISIS, and will likely continue to do so in the future. It's like if a farmer wanted you to make them a shotgun so they could kill the wolves terrorizing their flock but you knew they were also going to use that shotgun to rob their neighbor for oil
I see your analogy.
But it's not totally perfect, because in a (hopefully functioning) democracy, the farmer can be told what to do by his constituents. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but do we trust the entity we voted for (USA.gov), or the one that makes money off our existence (google.com).
I don't always know.
I don't always know.
War has never existed due to a lack of tools or technology. If anything, those things made war more deadly than ever (see WW1).
Wars exist because people are willing to kill and die for what they believe in. As Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means”
Wars exist because people are willing to kill and die for what they believe in. As Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means”
I feel like this would all be a little more interesting coming from a different username.
The point is certainly valid. If Google steps out of this, they are just going to find someone to fill those shoes.
No, that's simply not true. Lots of things were "Just how things are" until enough people stood up and said "No". Googles' employees are actually using their privilege to try to make a high-profile stand. No idea if it will make a difference, but it is far better than not trying.
Symmetrical war isn't a good thing either, it's far worse - death tolls are much higher for both sides and wars last longer. See WW1. Sure, question why and when war is necessary - but when a war needs to be fought I don't think making war more symmetrical would be appreciated by anyone and result in less "coming back to bite us in the ass".
WW1 lasted from 1914-1918. The "war on terror" began in 2001 and is still ongoing in 2018, and its capacity to bite us in the ass seems undiminished.
I don't think the marginal cost of these things has been that much of a consideration in the past.
Less American military personnel will be put in harm's way as technology like this advances. Maybe wars will even be mostly unmanned remotely controlled machine-vs-machine in the future.
Less American military personnel will be put in harm's way as technology like this advances. Maybe wars will even be mostly unmanned remotely controlled machine-vs-machine in the future.
I was using that phrase a little loosely to mean "Fewer American soldiers being hurt or killed".
Does a more accurate weapon really kill fewer people in every case? Even if the US government doesn't misuse it, the technology can always be sold to or hacked by some third party.
It's also possible that when a weapon is deemed technically capable, people will be more comfortable with broad use of weapons and with expanding lists of individuals targeted for extrajudicial killing.
It's also possible that when a weapon is deemed technically capable, people will be more comfortable with broad use of weapons and with expanding lists of individuals targeted for extrajudicial killing.
Exactly this. So many people in this thread seem to be entirely ignorant of the effect that technology plays in munitions. People seem to look at atomic munitions and think "oh the role of technology is to build bigger weapons that can kill more people." This is an extremely narrow section of munitions research and almost intentionally myopic.
You do not need advanced technology to build simple rockets with simple warheads and wreak havoc. These rockets are guided by nothing better than pointing and shooting. We see this in use in various paramilitaries around the world with little concern for civilian casualties: in Gaza, in Syria, in South Lebanon, in Yemen. If the West was similarly limited to such crude munitions then the civilian cost to destroying legitimate military targets would be enormous. Better guided munitions reduce civilian casualties and as such working on making munitions better-guided is indeed ethical.
If you think that not giving generals the tools to better avoid civilian casualties means they will simply not wage war in ways that endanger civilians, well history is pretty clear that this is quite erroneous. Giving generals the tools to wage war more ethically allows them to make decisions with fewer compromises e.g. civilian casualties.
This is not even to mention work on purely defensive munitions, e.g. Iron Dome, which is inherently ethical.
And if your opposition is rooted in a sense of pacifism, please, freedom is not free, it's not just a slogan. Anarchies (i.e. the lack of a sovereign government with a military defending territory) and their power vacuums result in warlords and the end of civil society. And that Malthusian outcome is clearly less ethical than almost any other. That's just human nature. Defense of civil society requires a military. Ideally, that military will act as ethically as possible while achieving its primary goal which is the stability (in face of external threats) necessary for civil society to flourish. There are two ways to make the military ethical: a) give it ethical tools so that it won't be forced to use less ethical means for achieving its raison d'être, b) set ethical policy. As sad that it may be that we have little control over the latter, as engineers we can have control over the former.
You do not need advanced technology to build simple rockets with simple warheads and wreak havoc. These rockets are guided by nothing better than pointing and shooting. We see this in use in various paramilitaries around the world with little concern for civilian casualties: in Gaza, in Syria, in South Lebanon, in Yemen. If the West was similarly limited to such crude munitions then the civilian cost to destroying legitimate military targets would be enormous. Better guided munitions reduce civilian casualties and as such working on making munitions better-guided is indeed ethical.
If you think that not giving generals the tools to better avoid civilian casualties means they will simply not wage war in ways that endanger civilians, well history is pretty clear that this is quite erroneous. Giving generals the tools to wage war more ethically allows them to make decisions with fewer compromises e.g. civilian casualties.
This is not even to mention work on purely defensive munitions, e.g. Iron Dome, which is inherently ethical.
And if your opposition is rooted in a sense of pacifism, please, freedom is not free, it's not just a slogan. Anarchies (i.e. the lack of a sovereign government with a military defending territory) and their power vacuums result in warlords and the end of civil society. And that Malthusian outcome is clearly less ethical than almost any other. That's just human nature. Defense of civil society requires a military. Ideally, that military will act as ethically as possible while achieving its primary goal which is the stability (in face of external threats) necessary for civil society to flourish. There are two ways to make the military ethical: a) give it ethical tools so that it won't be forced to use less ethical means for achieving its raison d'être, b) set ethical policy. As sad that it may be that we have little control over the latter, as engineers we can have control over the former.
Maybe if they stopped the program they would kill less people.
So by that definition, it would be great to sell this technology to the "enemy" as well because then they could kill fewer people.
This is is not the same kind of technology as better materials science for gun barrels, or hypergolic fuels for ICBM maneuvering thrusters. This is about a software that constitutes a decision making process. Who dies is not up to you or a commander, but by a automatic software process. Debugging the code means innocent people are probably going to die to do it.
Just as with a nuclear arsenal, what keeps the peace is a balance of power between the nations. If one nations has access to a military technology that allows it to destroy it's ennemies and steal it's resources without fear of retaliation, it WILL use it.
Our well meaning google friends might believe they are doing the right thing, but they are just doing what's fashionable instead of really thinking the consequences of these actions. Making ourselves weaker in the AI race augments the probability of war instead of diminishing it.
Our well meaning google friends might believe they are doing the right thing, but they are just doing what's fashionable instead of really thinking the consequences of these actions. Making ourselves weaker in the AI race augments the probability of war instead of diminishing it.
I support Google workers. The hubris of US Military is unprecedented. Our military is already trying to pick a fight mostly for no reason. The more the cost of war drops for them (less killed personnel) the more they will create devastation, look Middle East since Iraq invasion.
The US Military has zero hubris in and of itself. The 'US Military' has so many moving parts and sub-cultures, not including all the support systems, contractors and so on. On a unit by unit basis; it is just a job for many many people.
You might be talking about the big picture 'US Military' - it doesn't wield itself either.
'Our military is already trying to pick a fight'
Our military doesn't get to pick the fights. They get to fight the fights.
Our military doesn't get to pick the fights. They get to fight the fights.
Relevant here: "Why don't I take military funding?" by Prof. Benjamin Kuipers.
https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/no-military-fun...
From the introduction: """ Mostly it's a testimony that it's possible to have a successful career in computer science without taking military funding. My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious objector, did alternative service instead of submitting to the draft, and joined the Society of Friends (Quakers). During the 1980s and 90s, the position seemed to lose some of its urgency, so it became more of a testimony about career paths.
Since September 11, 2001, all the urgency is back. The defense of our country is at stake, so this testimony becomes critical. In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces. """
https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/no-military-fun...
From the introduction: """ Mostly it's a testimony that it's possible to have a successful career in computer science without taking military funding. My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious objector, did alternative service instead of submitting to the draft, and joined the Society of Friends (Quakers). During the 1980s and 90s, the position seemed to lose some of its urgency, so it became more of a testimony about career paths.
Since September 11, 2001, all the urgency is back. The defense of our country is at stake, so this testimony becomes critical. In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces. """
Im confused, do people working at Google not know the origin of their company? There would be no Google if not for Pentagon funded military research.
Look up "Highlands Forum", DLI, MDDS. Sergey Brin was literally funded by NSA and CIA under MDDS.
Look up "Highlands Forum", DLI, MDDS. Sergey Brin was literally funded by NSA and CIA under MDDS.
Sometimes it's knowing your origins intimately which gives the strongest cause to oppose them. There's the case of Robert Oppenheimer, father, and opponent, of the atomic bomb.
http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/hist...
From the Soviet side, Andrei Sakarov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov
http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/hist...
From the Soviet side, Andrei Sakarov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov
People can advocate away from their origins. It's not hypocritical for the child of a rape to advocate against rape.
Thank you, Google employees who signed this letter! Let us hope the, ummm, yea, "do no evil" company listens to you (and to its very own motto).
So it is ethical to track hundreds of millions of people to manipulate them for profit. But unethical to defend power plants in the United States?
It's also unethical to solve world hunger by feeding the poor to the hungry. If defending is done not by installing firewalls, but by spying on everyone in case they do something bad, you have a huge problem.
I have been encouraging my friends and family to discourage their kids from working for US Army, Pentagon and similar organisations.
For a country like USA it is stupid to waste human capital on fighting someone else's wars.
For a country like USA it is stupid to waste human capital on fighting someone else's wars.
I think it's very important to consider the increase in military spending over the past decade and decrease in funding for universities.
More and more funding in the military means more funding for specifically defense projects rather than straight up knowledge or public good.
What is the long term affect of this? Perhaps research far more focused on destruction instead of public good. More better drones, less general knowledge or cures for diseases?
It's a sad state of affairs, and workers standing up against military research within their companies is a good first step.
---
One of the first sources I found on this is below, but I've specifically heard about it being vexing from AI researchers, as many don't want to directly support military applications, but don't have much of an opportunities for funding otherwise.
https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-...
More and more funding in the military means more funding for specifically defense projects rather than straight up knowledge or public good.
What is the long term affect of this? Perhaps research far more focused on destruction instead of public good. More better drones, less general knowledge or cures for diseases?
It's a sad state of affairs, and workers standing up against military research within their companies is a good first step.
---
One of the first sources I found on this is below, but I've specifically heard about it being vexing from AI researchers, as many don't want to directly support military applications, but don't have much of an opportunities for funding otherwise.
https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-...
My favorite:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...
I wonder if Eric Schmidt left Google because of this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...
I wonder if Eric Schmidt left Google because of this.
Not sure if the article claims Eric Schmidt was ousted. But Schmidt has worked for the pentagon since 2016 http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/02/technology/eric-schmidt-pent...
He left quite a bit later after the article was posted. I was wondering whether this article helped.
So it says it will improve drone strike accuracy. Isn’t it a good thing? I mean there are currently a lot of civilian casualties from drone strikes, but that doesn’t stop anyone from using them anyway. Wouldn’t at least improving accuracy make thinks better in some regard?
Most of the civilian deaths stem from inaccurate intelligence as far as I know and the most accurate intelligence comes from humans on the ground, not videos from a drone. It's also the source of misleading intelligence, like people targeting their local enemies, not actual enemies we want to target, so there's no foolproof way all the time to guarantee the right casualty if they are not out in public all the time without getting up close and personal.
replace "drone strike accuracy" with something like "zyklon b efficacy"
Improving the accuracy of munitions targeting enemy military forces hiding in a building that neighbors civilian buildings/shields is not the same as genocide.
"As Google defends its contracts from internal dissent, its competitors have not been shy about publicizing their own work on defense projects. Amazon touts its image recognition work with the Department of Defense, and Microsoft has promoted the fact that its cloud technology won a contract to handle classified information for every branch of the military and defense agencies."
Google should stop hiring activists and start hiring pragmatists.
Google should stop hiring activists and start hiring pragmatists.
"Google won't take a defense contract and has shed defense projects in the past" was a common theme at Google. Recruiters and employees actively advertised this as a feature of Google's not being evil.
They should stop doing that.
I mean who's stopping China from using AI powered military robots? they should think about the bigger picture.
Also I think they should invoke AI powered military robots in recruiting, what's cooler than that?!
I mean who's stopping China from using AI powered military robots? they should think about the bigger picture.
Also I think they should invoke AI powered military robots in recruiting, what's cooler than that?!
"Don't say that he's hypocritical
Rather say that he's apolitical
Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department, says says Werner von Braun"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro
Rather say that he's apolitical
Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department, says says Werner von Braun"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro
[deleted]
not killing innocent people in Yemen because they happened to be born into a Shia family is a little bit cooler IMO
That is literally the application of drone technology right now. The application of AI in drones is going to be used in a proxy/civil war in a poor country because one of the US's allies is composed of religious freaks. That's it. So unless you want to be complicit in killing innocent people because people in this country like cheap oil, hopefully you won't see this as very cool: http://www.newsweek.com/wedding-became-funeral-us-still-sile... (although this wasn't technically part of the civil war, it's still a highly relevant example)
That is literally the application of drone technology right now. The application of AI in drones is going to be used in a proxy/civil war in a poor country because one of the US's allies is composed of religious freaks. That's it. So unless you want to be complicit in killing innocent people because people in this country like cheap oil, hopefully you won't see this as very cool: http://www.newsweek.com/wedding-became-funeral-us-still-sile... (although this wasn't technically part of the civil war, it's still a highly relevant example)
Realistically... how does this affect a senior AI programmer?
I'd argue the more skilled and, well, rich, you become, the less national borders really matter. Unless you're patriotic, I guess.
>What's cooler than that
Speak for yourself! I would find that disgusting. A given company's culture doesn't have to appeal to everyone, it wouldn't be much of a culture if it did.
I'd argue the more skilled and, well, rich, you become, the less national borders really matter. Unless you're patriotic, I guess.
>What's cooler than that
Speak for yourself! I would find that disgusting. A given company's culture doesn't have to appeal to everyone, it wouldn't be much of a culture if it did.
Didn't Google drop its "Don't be evil" motto a few years ago?
No, this is a common misconception. Google still has "Don't be evil", but Alphabet also now has "Do the right thing". Both are hilarious in the context of what Google actually does.
[deleted]
Do Google employees actually believe this?
Supposedly, and this is hearsay, but when Google bought Skybox Imaging, they cancelled their government contract(s) and kept the private ones. The idea commonly believed amongst employees there was that they did not want to provide intelligence services to the federal government.
A large fraction of the world's best engineers don't want to be associated with military projects. So companies have a choice to hire them and not do military projects, or not hire them and do them.
When I was running a robot company, I made the decision to not do military projects (mostly for personal reasons) and it helped me hire some great people that I couldn't have otherwise.
When I was running a robot company, I made the decision to not do military projects (mostly for personal reasons) and it helped me hire some great people that I couldn't have otherwise.
A "large fraction" has to be a huge overstatement. I have an extremely difficult time believing a "large fraction" of top tier engineers won't work on a military project simply because its associated with the military. More like a very small minority. That number becomes "almost zero" when not taking the military project means having to make a career change.
Ive been around the block a few times, I've worked in the defense industry myself and I've worked in non-defense private sector as well. The quality and quantity of engineers are extremely similar in my experience.
Don't forget, a lot of the tech we use everyday started as military projects, such as the Internet and GPS. Even Siri has its roots as part of a DARPA project. You really think the engineers involved in those technologies are second tier?
Ive been around the block a few times, I've worked in the defense industry myself and I've worked in non-defense private sector as well. The quality and quantity of engineers are extremely similar in my experience.
Don't forget, a lot of the tech we use everyday started as military projects, such as the Internet and GPS. Even Siri has its roots as part of a DARPA project. You really think the engineers involved in those technologies are second tier?
[citation needed] on why you think there is a large fraction of the worlds best engineers that don't want to be associated with military projects. It has been my experience that the best engineers want to work on hard problems and solve the worlds pressing needs, that sometimes puts them right in the middle of military projects. For instance almost every modern technological breakthrough has been accomplished by or for a military project, and most large technology companies have done work with the military ( and not just modern technology, historically all the big engineering firms helped with military technology ).
I've previously worked in defense contracting, as I've said in a sibling comment. Getting DARPA money is seen as extremely awesome and exciting in the industry because it usually means you get to work on amazing futuristic technology that they private sector would never fund and without needing a strategy for monetization.
Anyways, is working on software to, for example, improve the day-to-day tasks of soliders and marines really morally inferior to selling people's private data to advertisers? - Most military projects do not involve tactical systems. Let's be honest here, building the "Uber of salads" doesn't change the world.
The out of touch hubis displayed in the GP comment is pretty infuriating.
Anyways, is working on software to, for example, improve the day-to-day tasks of soliders and marines really morally inferior to selling people's private data to advertisers? - Most military projects do not involve tactical systems. Let's be honest here, building the "Uber of salads" doesn't change the world.
The out of touch hubis displayed in the GP comment is pretty infuriating.
Pragmatist must mean greed over morality. I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to the ethically dubious actions of the US Military.
It's unproductive to cast aside as malevolent the opinions of reasonable people who disagree with you.
It's unproductive to sneeringly cast aside the concerns of Google Employees as starry eyed activism but here we are.
Its uncontroversial to state that the US military has committed war crimes and engaged in military campaigns across the world in spite of international law. Google is working the military to expand the capabilities to carry out these attacks and to work on these projects is to either agree ideologically that the U.S. military should have these capabilities or to turn a blind eye to its uses for a cushy salary and a chance to play with state of the art toys for your day job. Between the two, the later is far more palatable to me so I feel I'm being quite generous by labeling it as greed.
Its uncontroversial to state that the US military has committed war crimes and engaged in military campaigns across the world in spite of international law. Google is working the military to expand the capabilities to carry out these attacks and to work on these projects is to either agree ideologically that the U.S. military should have these capabilities or to turn a blind eye to its uses for a cushy salary and a chance to play with state of the art toys for your day job. Between the two, the later is far more palatable to me so I feel I'm being quite generous by labeling it as greed.
> Its uncontroversial to state that the US military has committed war crimes and engaged in military campaigns across the world in spite of international law.
I don't disagree with this. The question I'm trying to figure out -- which powerful nation should we look to for an example on how to do better?
Also, are there are any benefits to the U.S. maintaining hegemony as the top military power that we need to weigh in this analysis?
I definitely am not fully up to speed on the details of this debate, but it does appear fairly complex at first glance.
I don't disagree with this. The question I'm trying to figure out -- which powerful nation should we look to for an example on how to do better?
Also, are there are any benefits to the U.S. maintaining hegemony as the top military power that we need to weigh in this analysis?
I definitely am not fully up to speed on the details of this debate, but it does appear fairly complex at first glance.
Sure in the same way that the Macedonians and Mongols were good for the Silk Road, the United States and the Bretton Woods system is fantastic for international shipping and suppressing regional conflicts.
Even if the US is a net positive I believe that almost none of the campaigns it has engaged in the last 20 years have done anything to contribute to that. I can't abide by that and would urge anyone with a conscience to do the same.
Even if the US is a net positive I believe that almost none of the campaigns it has engaged in the last 20 years have done anything to contribute to that. I can't abide by that and would urge anyone with a conscience to do the same.
It makes you an activist to not want to work on certain projects because you disagree with them?
This actually has a simple definitional answer:
If your goal in not working on them is to bring about political or social change as a result, then you are, by definition, an activist.
If not, no :)
If your goal in not working on them is to bring about political or social change as a result, then you are, by definition, an activist.
If not, no :)
Doesn't by the same logic working on them, and thus implicitly supporting the political or societal status quo, make you an activist as well?
This isn't logic, i literally quoted the dictionary at them :)
(though i admit different dictionaries seem to have fairly different definitions here)
(though i admit different dictionaries seem to have fairly different definitions here)
AI talent is operating in a sellers market right now. It's up to Google to act in such a way that the people they want to hire want to work there.
They'll start at image recognition and they'll end up doing much more in the end, especially if their government contracts keep increasing in value.
Why go down this path at all? Google doesn't need to be a war contractor (I think "defense contractor" is a misnomer these days - we all know what this tech is used for: bloody violent and usually unfair/illegal war).
Google should avoid becoming a sponsor of death in the world. What happened to "changing the world" (for the better, I assume)? Is feeding the American war machine changing the world for the better? Really?
Why go down this path at all? Google doesn't need to be a war contractor (I think "defense contractor" is a misnomer these days - we all know what this tech is used for: bloody violent and usually unfair/illegal war).
Google should avoid becoming a sponsor of death in the world. What happened to "changing the world" (for the better, I assume)? Is feeding the American war machine changing the world for the better? Really?
The defenders of american military in this thread have forgotten that for the past half century, the american war machine has commited war crimes across the world.
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdD9uSrNFT4
https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/
It is commendable that employees with moral fibre at google are saying no to the industrial war machine, that feeds on global conflict.
And there is no apriori reason as to argue that military funding is the only way to do ground breaking research. Ironic that some in the political spectrum who generally defend the military also feverently view goverment spending as inefficient to markets.
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdD9uSrNFT4
https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/
It is commendable that employees with moral fibre at google are saying no to the industrial war machine, that feeds on global conflict.
And there is no apriori reason as to argue that military funding is the only way to do ground breaking research. Ironic that some in the political spectrum who generally defend the military also feverently view goverment spending as inefficient to markets.
Google should stop hiring activists
Google hasn't been doing that, ever. That's really the point of the story - the agency of the people who work at Google.
Google hasn't been doing that, ever. That's really the point of the story - the agency of the people who work at Google.
Google is used by individuals whereas AWS and MS are predominantly the clients of industry, who are much less activist and much more pragmatic.
I never realized pragmatic was the antonym of active /s
Are the Google employees working on this project all American? Google's workforce is heavily multinational, but I would imagine a pentagon project would require some kind of security clearance?
I think you'd be surprised, I've worked on a few government security clearance roles where 80-90% of below management staff were Indian.
Better headline:
"Google Workers Astonished: Found Out They Work In Capitalist System, Not Nerd Commune"
"Google Workers Astonished: Found Out They Work In Capitalist System, Not Nerd Commune"
> several Google employees familiar with the letter would speak of it only on the condition of anonymity, saying they were concerned about retaliation
This is too bad that the fear of retaliation exists for a letter like this. Is this actually the case? Or did the author read into them wanting to remain anonymous incorrectly? Perhaps they didn't want to become a spokesman for this issue outside the company, but are fine making their opinion known to coworkers and managers.
This is too bad that the fear of retaliation exists for a letter like this. Is this actually the case? Or did the author read into them wanting to remain anonymous incorrectly? Perhaps they didn't want to become a spokesman for this issue outside the company, but are fine making their opinion known to coworkers and managers.
Oh boy. Being on the inside of Maven, I can't tell you how confused these Googlers are.
If you're not going to explain for the rest of us, what was the point of this comment?
To communicate that the people on the inside of Google who are making these protestations are grossly uninformed about the Google-Maven relationship.
Choose to believe me or not. My background is all out there for people to see.
Choose to believe me or not. My background is all out there for people to see.
When it comes to life-or-death questions, we should make informed decisions. "Just trust me" fundamentally lacks any valuable information that furthers the discussion. In addition, "just trust me" also endangers less clear thinking people to sway based on emotion instead of well-founded cold hard facts.
The reality of Defense/Intelligence is that you do have to just trust some of us.
Your background isn't nearly as useful as the facts. You're the one who started this thread, but it's completely unsubstantiated. If people aren't going to believe Sundar Pichai (CEO) without evidence, why should anyone believe you?
R.I.P. your TS/SCI clearance. Identifying yourself as part of any project on the internet is quite possibly the #1 no-no, certainly the #1 internet no-no. In fact, this makes me wonder if you really know anything at all.
[deleted]
I call bullshit.
The fact that you are outing yourself (now and in your HN profile) is very unlike any other "spook" I know.
It's laughable that you say your " background is all out there for people to see".
The fact that you are outing yourself (now and in your HN profile) is very unlike any other "spook" I know.
It's laughable that you say your " background is all out there for people to see".
it appears from linkedin that he was an AF intelligence officer.
being a military intelligence officer is not the same as, say, being a clandestine service officer. apparently, the AF even sees fit to give you "intelligence wings" to wear on your chest. there appear to be an awful lot of current and former intelligence officers who list their specialty and former duty stations in linkedin.
being a military intelligence officer is not the same as, say, being a clandestine service officer. apparently, the AF even sees fit to give you "intelligence wings" to wear on your chest. there appear to be an awful lot of current and former intelligence officers who list their specialty and former duty stations in linkedin.
As you surely know, most people unfortunately do not follow the "gather data, then respond" model.
Most stuff is unfortunately fact-free (or fact-freer than it should be)
[deleted]
Everyone needs to fear the military industrial complex. Its bad for every business that is not in the business of war and killing. I'm sorry but today is unlike anything we have ever witnessed. While Military Industrial Complex was one thing in 1950, today, its a totally different beast and our society can't take much more beast.
We should all be in the business of peace and prosperity, not war and destruction. If we aim to build a better world that is. What will it take, my fellow geniuses, to build a peaceful world?
Google+Alphabet yearly revenues are in the same ballpark as South Africa's GDP.
Google/Alphabet is already a country in its own right, and libertarians would already be sceptical of Google's role in society.
This is just another step down a long road of Technocracy...
Also, wasn't "Don't be evil" dropped as a motto? I thought I read that.
Google/Alphabet is already a country in its own right, and libertarians would already be sceptical of Google's role in society.
This is just another step down a long road of Technocracy...
Also, wasn't "Don't be evil" dropped as a motto? I thought I read that.
No. It's right here: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
Common misconception, and pointless to even bring it up. Because while "Don't be evil" is in their code of conduct, they regularly do evil.
Common misconception, and pointless to even bring it up. Because while "Don't be evil" is in their code of conduct, they regularly do evil.
Countries aren’t defined by the size of their economy but, at the very least, the monopoly of violence. Google doesn’t hold such a monopoly and likely never will...
Power is more complex than the direct application of violence. Corporate relationships with governments can induce them, and often have induced, violent reactions against people harming a company's interests.
That does not a country make.
Which do you care more about? Power and who has it or the label "country"?
Yes when Eric joined.
Do you consider all the great scientists who helped the US military during WWII evil? Would you have preferred they sat on the sideline for moral reasons and allowed Germany to win?
Sorry, which war are we fighting now, and against whom?
There’s a vaguesly worded Authorization of Use of Military Force, I think, from post 9/11, but, last I checked the US hasn’t declared war on anyone.
There’s a vaguesly worded Authorization of Use of Military Force, I think, from post 9/11, but, last I checked the US hasn’t declared war on anyone.
Their entire career choice and their current sky-high yearly salaries plus the stock price are based on what fundamentally was a military need i.e. the internet (or the TCP/IP protocol to be exact).
The right course of action IMO would be to leave Google if you are unsatisfied with working for Pentagon.
But Google HAS to work for the Pentagon and especially on AI because the knowledge that comes out of this isn't only going to be military but to a much higher degree and relevant extent for civilized use.
Technology is always a double-edged sword and we have to learn to deal with the powers it gives us. But to not be on the forefront of technology when you can is a losers game and Google would lose much of its value if it isn't at the forefront.
The right course of action IMO would be to leave Google if you are unsatisfied with working for Pentagon.
But Google HAS to work for the Pentagon and especially on AI because the knowledge that comes out of this isn't only going to be military but to a much higher degree and relevant extent for civilized use.
Technology is always a double-edged sword and we have to learn to deal with the powers it gives us. But to not be on the forefront of technology when you can is a losers game and Google would lose much of its value if it isn't at the forefront.
This is a tricky problem and there is no easy position to take. On one hand you don’t want anyone to have such lethal power. You could argue the atomic bomb is the warning we should learn from.
On the other hand, this needs to be evaluated in the context of “balance of power”. Can Alibaba really refuse helping Chinese military. If not the Chinese are going to gain the power regardless of whether US has it or not. Any advanced country could gain such power.
These other entities may not follow the same ethical guidelines. Are we then proposing the US military should be less powerful than its rivals?
On the other hand, this needs to be evaluated in the context of “balance of power”. Can Alibaba really refuse helping Chinese military. If not the Chinese are going to gain the power regardless of whether US has it or not. Any advanced country could gain such power.
These other entities may not follow the same ethical guidelines. Are we then proposing the US military should be less powerful than its rivals?
> There’s a strong libertarian ethos among tech folks...
This does not ring true in my experience with "tech folks" in recent times. It may have been true at one time, but I think libertarianism in tech has fallen out of vogue.
Also, I take issue with distrusting how government (or any powerful organization) makes use of technology puts someone into the libertarian political philosophy according to this article. A healthy distrust of how powerful groups use technology makes a lot of sense for anyone and is definitely not something exclusive to libertarians.
This does not ring true in my experience with "tech folks" in recent times. It may have been true at one time, but I think libertarianism in tech has fallen out of vogue.
Also, I take issue with distrusting how government (or any powerful organization) makes use of technology puts someone into the libertarian political philosophy according to this article. A healthy distrust of how powerful groups use technology makes a lot of sense for anyone and is definitely not something exclusive to libertarians.
I want to remind those Google employees that they are able to work at Google and enjoy very high living standard and obviously freedom of speech just because they are protected by the US army.
[deleted]
>"...The letter, which is circulating inside Google and has garnered more than 3,100 signatures, reflects a culture clash between Silicon Valley and the federal government..."
If Google still continues to engage in the 'Business of war', would these 3,100 employees walk out?
Would they, then, also refuse to pay taxes to the US Fed Gov (which, obviously spends them, on the business of war) ?
If Google still continues to engage in the 'Business of war', would these 3,100 employees walk out?
Would they, then, also refuse to pay taxes to the US Fed Gov (which, obviously spends them, on the business of war) ?
Seems like the two most likely consequences would be more inaccurate drone strikes and a higher risk of further expansion of the territory controlled by Communist Chinese hegemony. I don't think these Google employees want that so I'd like to see their thoughts on why they think the US military having worse AI would bring about a better universe.
Totally agree! We should stop trying to make a weapon more accurate and go back to fire bombing complete cities. Only way to be sure.
To me this illustrates a huge opportunity: big tech can't effectively engage with public good projects (e.g. typical government territory). What's needed is a tech gov superlayer that provides an umbrella for these services and can also guarantee their internal integrity. The lack of guarantee over this last point is one major problem here.
But wouldn’t drone strike accuracy improvement actually reduce civilian casualties?
Given that these strikes will occur one way or the other, isn't this stance actually adding more misery to the world?
(So do drone strikes in general. Much better to negotiate at a table with a mediator or use a sporting event to resolve disputes, but I don't currently run things here.)
Given that these strikes will occur one way or the other, isn't this stance actually adding more misery to the world?
(So do drone strikes in general. Much better to negotiate at a table with a mediator or use a sporting event to resolve disputes, but I don't currently run things here.)
> Given that these strikes will occur one way or the other,
Holy poopers, no. Drone strikes are not like premarital sex. The fact that we're _here_ (that being autonomous killer robots firing missiles from the sky to kill "bad guys") and no one bats an eyelash, means we're already in some kind of massive fail scenario.
We could, for example, go back to the rule of law. You know, before we believed that every bad guy out there was going to end civilization and deprive us of our "freedom." Before we decided blowing up wedding parties in Pakistan was such a great use of our time and money, and every Allahu-Ackbar-kaboom moment is a pervasive existential threat.
Holy poopers, no. Drone strikes are not like premarital sex. The fact that we're _here_ (that being autonomous killer robots firing missiles from the sky to kill "bad guys") and no one bats an eyelash, means we're already in some kind of massive fail scenario.
We could, for example, go back to the rule of law. You know, before we believed that every bad guy out there was going to end civilization and deprive us of our "freedom." Before we decided blowing up wedding parties in Pakistan was such a great use of our time and money, and every Allahu-Ackbar-kaboom moment is a pervasive existential threat.
I kind of agree with you. This is dystopian at this point. And I don't see how permitting this sort of thing wouldn't have massive consequences down the road, but then again I'm the guy who thinks intense negotiation at a table with a mediator, and/or deciding a dispute with some sort of sporting event, is a superior solution to simply butchering people with explosives en masse.
When I was little I asked my dad why people couldn't settle things with a snowball fight or something instead of killing each other in wars, he said because there's always somebody out there that will put a rock in the snowball. That's always stuck with me
They called those "loaded" snowballs
As someone who is hesitant of using (free) cloud services there you pay with your information I really like that there are some thoughtful and aware people working at Google. If it turns out that they have the power to affect decisions like this in there company I might choose to use more Google products.
Apple recently hired the Google A.I. Chief[1]. I wonder how much this is related.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/business/apple-hires-goog...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/business/apple-hires-goog...
I keep seeing the argument "More accurate weapons would kill fewer people". By that logic, it would be perfectly okay for Google to sell this technology to the enemy states so those guys could kill fewer Americans. This sounds ridiculous to me but it's likely I am missing something.
My condolences to leaders who organized this. They'll find in their management review that because a fly farted in their work areas they haven't achieved performance on par with their peers. At next round of layoffs, they'll be released.
So 3100 out of 57000 employees signed the letter. That makes google only 95% evil.
Google is a huge company, turning down big money from the US Gov't for legal purposes is probably not a realistic option (at what point would shareholders sue if they turned down hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue?)
They can sue all they want. But they'll lose.
A petition by 3000 employees (or, to be honest, 30) is enough to claim that it was in the company's interest to forgo this revenue to improve their standing among potential hires. Remember that tech companies live and die by the quality of their workforce.
Moreover, the idea that companies always have to act according to strict profit motivations is a myth. Just look at the billions corporations spend each year on charitable causes.
Yes, you could claim that these donations are done for PR purposes. But that would render your argument meaningless, because I can reframe any such altruistic actions in terms of PR. I have also personally witnessed many decisions that cost money but served some greater good and were never publicised.
A petition by 3000 employees (or, to be honest, 30) is enough to claim that it was in the company's interest to forgo this revenue to improve their standing among potential hires. Remember that tech companies live and die by the quality of their workforce.
Moreover, the idea that companies always have to act according to strict profit motivations is a myth. Just look at the billions corporations spend each year on charitable causes.
Yes, you could claim that these donations are done for PR purposes. But that would render your argument meaningless, because I can reframe any such altruistic actions in terms of PR. I have also personally witnessed many decisions that cost money but served some greater good and were never publicised.
It isn't a myth that companies have to act due to strict profit motivations. It's law.
The example you used on charitable causes, falls directly into marketing.
The example you used on charitable causes, falls directly into marketing.
It's a law in Delaware, only. It is almost never litigated. You haven't addressed my point that any altruistic motive can be reframed as marketing and that therefore the law is largely meaningless.
Never, successfully, considering that the absolute control of the founders was made clear at IPO and at all subsequent points.
I wrote a little article related to this matter; I submitted it to HN on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16760768
And this is why tech workers need to unionise. This petition is a weak statement that probably will have no effect. Unless these workers could pose a real threat to Google by threatening a strike action, Google has no need to change anything.
Furthermore, if the workers really stood by their moral convictions, they'd use their collective power to tackle the issue more directly than by just appealing to Google. Companies like Google are like the railroads of the 19th century. They comprise the major infrastructure of modern society. A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions. Is facebook manipulating voters? Okay, no more gmail for facebook till they stop. Is the government going to bomb Yemen? Alright, we're shutting down government accounts.
As others in the thread have also said, I'm doubtful many of these signatories will quit their cozy jobs if Google doesn't back down. Without the group solidarity and pressure from a union, most individual workers just don't have any good incentive to put their money where their mouth is.
Furthermore, if the workers really stood by their moral convictions, they'd use their collective power to tackle the issue more directly than by just appealing to Google. Companies like Google are like the railroads of the 19th century. They comprise the major infrastructure of modern society. A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions. Is facebook manipulating voters? Okay, no more gmail for facebook till they stop. Is the government going to bomb Yemen? Alright, we're shutting down government accounts.
As others in the thread have also said, I'm doubtful many of these signatories will quit their cozy jobs if Google doesn't back down. Without the group solidarity and pressure from a union, most individual workers just don't have any good incentive to put their money where their mouth is.
I no longer have any “skin in the game” Re: Google, but those who do may be interested in the Tech Workers’ Coalition (Free beer! Other Googlers!):
https://techworkerscoalition.org/
https://techworkerscoalition.org/
A reason why we SHOULDN'T unionize. It means that workers could potentially be politicized and forced to be a part of things that they don't believe in. Maybe right now we may agree with not militarizing our company, but what if the union starts supporting ideas that you're fundamentally against?
Can you explain the mechanics of that happening? Do you have any personal experience of unionized work?
Employees having more of a say about what they work on though collective bargaining, resulting in employees having less of a say on what they work on, seems unlikely to me.
Employees having more of a say about what they work on though collective bargaining, resulting in employees having less of a say on what they work on, seems unlikely to me.
> Can you explain the mechanics of that happening?
It's simple - unions can force you to join, take your money, and give it to political causes you don't support. And if you're in the minority, you don't have any say in it. See Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and several more recent cases (Friedrichs v. CTA, Janus v AFSCME).
Picture this - if you were a minority opinion holder in a Google Union, and the majority of the members decided to strike to protest Google's work with the Pentagon, you would be subject to union discipline, including fines and lawsuits.
Basically, unions are fine as long as you agree with everything they say and do...
It's simple - unions can force you to join, take your money, and give it to political causes you don't support. And if you're in the minority, you don't have any say in it. See Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and several more recent cases (Friedrichs v. CTA, Janus v AFSCME).
Picture this - if you were a minority opinion holder in a Google Union, and the majority of the members decided to strike to protest Google's work with the Pentagon, you would be subject to union discipline, including fines and lawsuits.
Basically, unions are fine as long as you agree with everything they say and do...
Sure, but by definition most employees will be in the majority on most employee issues. Few things are perfect, many things are useful. If your stance is consistently counter to that of other Google employees, then you probably have bigger problems with working at Google than the existence of a union.
Being in a union doesn’t preclude you from shopping around; if working on drone assasinations is personally important, consumer search-engines/ad-tech might not be the most fertile ground.
But for the employees who do work on search-engines/ad-tech, having a strong voice (and a credible threat) regarding whether that work subsidizes an extra-judicial assasination programs (sometimes targeting their own countrymen) seems like a fair idea to me.
Being in a union doesn’t preclude you from shopping around; if working on drone assasinations is personally important, consumer search-engines/ad-tech might not be the most fertile ground.
But for the employees who do work on search-engines/ad-tech, having a strong voice (and a credible threat) regarding whether that work subsidizes an extra-judicial assasination programs (sometimes targeting their own countrymen) seems like a fair idea to me.
You're missing the point. What if the Google union decides to put their weight behind Trump, because he gives tax incentives to search engine companies? And if you're vehemently against Trump and his policies, then where does that leave you? Your tax dues are now being spent on supporting a political campaign that you firmly don't support.
And that's the point. Unions are nothing but friction, especially for industries such as tech. I bet the employees of Google can self-organize much more efficiently without a union than with a union, and will be much more effective as well.
And as I mention below, Silicon Valley is awash with employee wealth. How exactly could unions have made things better for employees than what has already been accomplished without the help of a single union?
And that's the point. Unions are nothing but friction, especially for industries such as tech. I bet the employees of Google can self-organize much more efficiently without a union than with a union, and will be much more effective as well.
And as I mention below, Silicon Valley is awash with employee wealth. How exactly could unions have made things better for employees than what has already been accomplished without the help of a single union?
Thanks (sincerely) for giving your angle and engaging with my questions. I’m a relatively recent import to the US, so I haven’t had many of these conversations with Americans in tech before. Your worries sound very unlikely and theoretical to me, but I don’t imagine they’re uncommon among US tech workers.
It's not just theoretical, there is a very large split in the country because of politics. You will find many conservatives in Silicon Valley, and many liberals in the Deep South. Values are different across the board.
You didn't answer my question as to how unions would benefit Silicon Valley workers. What more could unions add that haven't already been added without the help of unions?
You didn't answer my question as to how unions would benefit Silicon Valley workers. What more could unions add that haven't already been added without the help of unions?
I think we both conjure very different conceptual entities when we imagine “The Google Engineering Union”, and are at this point talking unproductively at equally valid and imaginary crossed-purposes.
The truth is that neither of us know how a union at Google would change things, because it doesn’t exist.
The truth is that neither of us know how a union at Google would change things, because it doesn’t exist.
I don't see how the specifics of what any union, at Google or otherwise, might support matters. The odds that you will always be philosophically aligned with your union seems very small. But if joining the union is a requirement for employment then you will be forced to fund your own philosophical opposition.
Having unions be condition for employment is the cause of issues. People need free choice whether they want to be part of a union and which union they will support.
There are many different structures that unions can have so what you described isn't necessarily how it has to work. That said, even if it is how it worked, you would still be better off on average than if you weren't in a union.
It’s confusing because you think of “employees” as a unit while gp thinks of individual “employee”s as units.
I'm making almost $400,000 total compensation and I'm happily working on things that I love. I don't need a union to tax me and force me to pay dues to do absolutely nothing that will benefit me, besides pay themselves well. On top of that, having a union start representing itself as a political force will definitely upset me.
I may be against the militarization of Google, but what if I weren't? What if I supported it? Then I would be paying money to a union that I fundamentally disagreed with. There is a court case going to the Supreme Court about exactly this issue. What if I were a Democrat, and the union decided to support a Republican candidate?
I may be against the militarization of Google, but what if I weren't? What if I supported it? Then I would be paying money to a union that I fundamentally disagreed with. There is a court case going to the Supreme Court about exactly this issue. What if I were a Democrat, and the union decided to support a Republican candidate?
You have already taken a political stance -- that the common welfare of the labor force is of no concern to you.
There is no proof that unions actually contribute to the common welfare for a labor force such as tech. In fact, it's the opposite. Silicon Valley has been doing so well and enriched so many people that everyone else believes that tech workers have changed cities such as San Francisco for the worse. This was accomplished without a single union in Silicon Valley. It doesn't exist and yet hundreds of thousands of employees around here are disproportionately better off than everyone else.
Can you please explain how unions would make things better? Would we be making even more money? Or would they simply enrich themselves from union dues and create friction in every single process that makes this area great?
Can you please explain how unions would make things better? Would we be making even more money? Or would they simply enrich themselves from union dues and create friction in every single process that makes this area great?
kiliantics(3)
> A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions.
But this seems an amoral thing to do, to me! A small group of unelected, unaccountable and non-diverse people abusing their relative power to try to force a democratically elected government or private company to do something? Why would anyone want that?
But this seems an amoral thing to do, to me! A small group of unelected, unaccountable and non-diverse people abusing their relative power to try to force a democratically elected government or private company to do something? Why would anyone want that?
I'd love to live in a world where collective action by workers could be considered an abuse of power. The workers would be way better off in such a world.
It is completely insane and probably symptomatic of the extremely successful doublethink anti-union campaign by big business in the US to think organized workers could ever pose a larger threat to democracy than corporations you are grouping with the government as victims.
What a lot of people don't realize is that incorporation under US law is functionally franchising an elected government. The difference is that instead of the members of the business getting the votes the votes are called shares and are controlled by an oligarchy majority of shareholders.
The means by which the vast majority of businesses are run (with exception to many nonprofits, public benefit corporations, and coops) is what many would consider antithetical to how to run society fairly. And then people are surprised that such unaccountable undemocratic systems produce blatant corruption - except people don't even call it corruption despite it being a direct mapping to public corruption, they call it business as usual or meeting earnings expectations.
But no, the influence of THAT system of organization is fine - better, adored. Aspired towards. Workers trying to have more equal negotiations by working together though? Threat to democracy.
It is completely insane and probably symptomatic of the extremely successful doublethink anti-union campaign by big business in the US to think organized workers could ever pose a larger threat to democracy than corporations you are grouping with the government as victims.
What a lot of people don't realize is that incorporation under US law is functionally franchising an elected government. The difference is that instead of the members of the business getting the votes the votes are called shares and are controlled by an oligarchy majority of shareholders.
The means by which the vast majority of businesses are run (with exception to many nonprofits, public benefit corporations, and coops) is what many would consider antithetical to how to run society fairly. And then people are surprised that such unaccountable undemocratic systems produce blatant corruption - except people don't even call it corruption despite it being a direct mapping to public corruption, they call it business as usual or meeting earnings expectations.
But no, the influence of THAT system of organization is fine - better, adored. Aspired towards. Workers trying to have more equal negotiations by working together though? Threat to democracy.
Currently, Google and other large companies already do have power and influence over what the government does. But only a tiny portion of people at these companies are the ones deciding what to do with that power. It would be preferable if the entire company took part in deciding how it would influence what the government does. It would be even more preferable if workers across whole industries and whole sections of society together used their collective power to influence what the government can do. Ideally, these large federated unions would also do so with the interests of the unemployed/disabled/disenfranchised as well. This is what the IWW does. Tech workers should join the IWW.
> It would be even more preferable if workers across whole industries and whole sections of society together used their collective power to influence what the government can do.
Everyone in society is already part of one big union that can influence government - the electorate. Everyone gets one vote. If you try to force the government to do something it wouldn't do otherwise you're trying to get power beyond your one vote. That's why it's an abuse.
Everyone in society is already part of one big union that can influence government - the electorate. Everyone gets one vote. If you try to force the government to do something it wouldn't do otherwise you're trying to get power beyond your one vote. That's why it's an abuse.
'a democratically elected government or private company' is the same thing? Workers of a private company should have a say in the doings of the company.
> Workers of a private company should have a say in the doings of the company.
But the person I replied to advocated them abusing that say to undermine an elected government.
They weren't just saying 'Google should not have the government as a customer' they were saying 'Google should have the government as a customer and then deliberately abuse that to force their political agenda'.
> A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions.
See the difference? That's not 'we don't want to be involved in this, thanks'. It's 'we're going to abuse our position of power to get you to do what we want rather than what the voters' representative want'.
And I'd gently suggest that if you think this would be fine, it's just because they happen to have the same politics as you, which would be lucky for you, but beware it may change.
What if the Google union forced the government to bomb Yemen, instead to not bomb Yemen?
But the person I replied to advocated them abusing that say to undermine an elected government.
They weren't just saying 'Google should not have the government as a customer' they were saying 'Google should have the government as a customer and then deliberately abuse that to force their political agenda'.
> A union at Google could threaten to effectively halt all institutional operations of governments or other companies in order to influence their actions.
See the difference? That's not 'we don't want to be involved in this, thanks'. It's 'we're going to abuse our position of power to get you to do what we want rather than what the voters' representative want'.
And I'd gently suggest that if you think this would be fine, it's just because they happen to have the same politics as you, which would be lucky for you, but beware it may change.
What if the Google union forced the government to bomb Yemen, instead to not bomb Yemen?
This post seems like it was probably sarcasm but I can't tell. Just in case, though: we already have that.
My post wasn't sarcasm.
Nobody thinks the current system is perfect or not vulnerable to corruption or special interests etc, but at least it attempts to be representative of the people and accountable, and to be well informed through intelligence networks and professional analysis.
A dictatorship of a union of Google employees forcing the hand of the government based on what they're angry about from Twitter doesn't even bother to make a pretense of being fair.
Nobody thinks the current system is perfect or not vulnerable to corruption or special interests etc, but at least it attempts to be representative of the people and accountable, and to be well informed through intelligence networks and professional analysis.
A dictatorship of a union of Google employees forcing the hand of the government based on what they're angry about from Twitter doesn't even bother to make a pretense of being fair.
I think if you can twist your head enough to believe that our current system "at least attempts" (but, by implication, even you seem to agree still fails) to be representative of the people, but also believe that any employee union is a priori unrepresentative, you might be showing some bias. Maybe a lot of it, actually. And it doesn't help that you immediately heap a bunch of strawmen on this hypothetical Google union, either.
Edit: from your original post it also occurs to me you might think union leadership is never elected? But it almost always is (usually by law, in fact).
Edit: from your original post it also occurs to me you might think union leadership is never elected? But it almost always is (usually by law, in fact).
Anybody looking forward to the captchas asking us to identify drone targets?
During world war 2, fan favorite companies like Mercedez Benz were building tanks for the Nazis. If there is a war today don’t you think the government will seize everything and we will all be working for them? This is different in some ways because Google is likely being paid for this but I don’t think they can just refuse nor do I think they should be able to, frankly. That’s not how national security works.
And just because employees at Google refuse, employees in one of the big Chinese firms won’t be able to. If our government does not have this tech then someone else will.
We live in this fantasy, like people aren’t dying everyday from war in so many places around the world. We are not immune to that.
Edit: to all the folks down voting me it’s a good idea to get a different perspective sometimes.
And just because employees at Google refuse, employees in one of the big Chinese firms won’t be able to. If our government does not have this tech then someone else will.
We live in this fantasy, like people aren’t dying everyday from war in so many places around the world. We are not immune to that.
Edit: to all the folks down voting me it’s a good idea to get a different perspective sometimes.
> if there is a war today
Wow, we really are insulated from our military today, aren’t we? Yes, the US government is still at war in Afghanistan and with ISIS.
Wow, we really are insulated from our military today, aren’t we? Yes, the US government is still at war in Afghanistan and with ISIS.
From what I can tell, there are ~90k google employees[1]. So, 3% of the employees signed this. I feel like I could find 3000 people out of almost 100k that believe in almost anything, especially if it is generically anti-military, or anti-USG.
I doubt this would happen, but I wish these only petitions would include counter-petitions, which people could sign if they don't agree with the petition, so we could get an estimate of whether this is just a very vocal minority of Googlers or viewpoints are split.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-ti...
I doubt this would happen, but I wish these only petitions would include counter-petitions, which people could sign if they don't agree with the petition, so we could get an estimate of whether this is just a very vocal minority of Googlers or viewpoints are split.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-ti...
The fact remains regardless of historical anecdotes or advances made in the past that in today’s economic landscape one of the few steadily profitable and maintainable businesses is doing work for the Department of Defense. Regardless of who is president this is an organization that regularly gets well over 200+ billion in funding and much of what they do has little oversight. If you are a business large or small and can land a long term DOD contract I’ve seen businesses that needed capital but couldn’t raise it pivot to a well funded DOD project and then able to reap those profits into their other businesses successful.
It’s a sad state really but this is probably the main idea behind partnering with them in the first place
It’s a sad state really but this is probably the main idea behind partnering with them in the first place
Well this is it, n'est ce pas? Is google really about "do no evil" or will capitalism melt the snowflakes. Either way, googles fate is of its own making.
I wonder what Geoff Hinton's position on this is. He seems somewhat anti-military from some side comments in his Neural Networks course.
I remember reading that when DeepMind was acquired by Google in 2014, they made it a precondition that an ethics committee be set up to review use of AI, and Google did back out of some projects because of it.
In this case what they seem to be doing is allowing the military to use some of the AI tools on Google cloud which are also available for general use. This is a much grayer area - it is one thing to not develop something specifically for the military, it is another to say that we will not provide the military something we provide to the general public.
In this case what they seem to be doing is allowing the military to use some of the AI tools on Google cloud which are also available for general use. This is a much grayer area - it is one thing to not develop something specifically for the military, it is another to say that we will not provide the military something we provide to the general public.
What does anti military even mean? I can get anti war, but don't you want government has the power to stop terrorist, and military is needed for that.
Well It would mean we can respectfully disagree with terrorists and ask them to not blow things up and engage in bilateral or multilateral talks with governments which they have issues with.
These employees are right to be worried. If Google becomes a defense contractor I'll be going out of my way to stop using their products. I'm not a pacifist, but I'll always choose to work for and patronize peaceful enterprises, it's as simple as that. I also influence lots of non-technical friends and family in their IT purchases and habits and I'll definitely be warning them off as well. So Google, be less greedy and make the world a better place for us all.
The future of border security could be drones flying along the Mexican border, taking out intruders with precisely aimed headshots.
Not helping them improve precision of the drone strikes reduces the precision of those strikes which leads to more innocent lives lost as collateral. An argument could be made that using AI to improve surgical strike capability of drones would be the lesser of the two evils. Seems misguided, no pun intended.
Also, Google dropped the slogan "Don't be evil" in favor of "Do the right thing." Not that it matters because they barely followed it anyway.
Also, Google dropped the slogan "Don't be evil" in favor of "Do the right thing." Not that it matters because they barely followed it anyway.
I hate this line of reasoning, because in the end I could suggest that the government install remote kill switches in every single human being's brain and be able to precisely kill anyone with zero collateral damage at any point in time. I mean, why would we settle for anything less but absolute perfection? Let's get to it!
If I worked for Google and found out I was working for the Pentagon, my line would be crossed and I would resign.
I also think that disengaging is the wrong approach. Google once disengaged with China because they didn’t agree with China on some freedom of expression laws and all the management now think that it was a bad decision. In similar vein, if you are not part of it, somebody else will shape the outcome of this.. It should be rather you if you really care and could play a role in minimizing the negative impact of such tech
This sounds like some next-level rationalization to me. You can justify anything by theorizing that somebody else will do the same-thing-but-even-worse:
"If we don't employ child labour, somebody else will! It should be us, so we can at least make sure our child-slaves get fed once a day!"
The fact of the matter is that Google has rare talent in AI. There isn't another company with their kind of expertise waiting in line behind them, and even if there were, sometimes you should keep your hands clean.
"If we don't employ child labour, somebody else will! It should be us, so we can at least make sure our child-slaves get fed once a day!"
The fact of the matter is that Google has rare talent in AI. There isn't another company with their kind of expertise waiting in line behind them, and even if there were, sometimes you should keep your hands clean.
Your comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. You can’t do child labor because there are laws in the US to prevent that. If you lobby to pass a law that prevents AI for defense purposes then that would be similar. Here the US govt is a client, if not google they will go to some-other company for that tech as long as there is no law that prevents that.
Also, if they don’t go to google, sure they may not see as much of a rapid growth in AI tech, but if you think they will never be able to get anywhere significant, you sir are underestimating others IMO
Also, if they don’t go to google, sure they may not see as much of a rapid growth in AI tech, but if you think they will never be able to get anywhere significant, you sir are underestimating others IMO
AI is needed, the sooner we can make or create it to hold consciousness the better. We're constantly changing as a species and what we are 10,000 years from now, will far more different than we are to the ancient Egyptians. The universe will go on with out us and if intelligence is rare and spaced far apart AI is really the only chance that we have to be able to communicate or even find other intelligences.
The beginning... we basically can't avoid this. If it isn't Google, it will be someone else.
I think this is a good idea because it would be great optics for Google to cancel this project.
Qualifying rahulmehta95's comment below a bit. The government and military ought to be accountable to the citizenry, not the other way around. Having said that, DOD will just find other companies to continue this research, so it actually behooves Google to stays on and to actually contribute in making the technology more accurate.
So this is about data processing of video feeds used to target.
If you think about it, we (including Google employees) have known Google has been doing this in a different way to assist in waging war ever since Snowden showed us those slides. Google processes data for the government that allows them to know who to target for war.
If you think about it, we (including Google employees) have known Google has been doing this in a different way to assist in waging war ever since Snowden showed us those slides. Google processes data for the government that allows them to know who to target for war.
Engineer brains must be allocated to benefitting Humanity.
Ease the lives of your fellow traveler.
Ease the lives of your fellow traveler.
Their tech is already used in all kinds of war activities indirectly.
[deleted]
Google can't pull out. That'd be like being ungrateful.
A.I. is commodity compute. You can't pull out.
The genies of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear warfare, as well as genocde, ave been reasonably well re-bottled.
Even Sun Tzu notes that warfare is not total.
Even Sun Tzu notes that warfare is not total.
The CEO wants to match the evil of Mark Z.
[deleted]
It boggles my mind, with the current state of affairs, the number of people actively organizing to eliminate or curtail our fundamental human rights.
It seems to me that 1st and 2nd amendment rights are both under particularly intense bombardment these days.
It seems to me that 1st and 2nd amendment rights are both under particularly intense bombardment these days.
How do you think the 2nd amendment is under assault? If you look at the list of things our youth were marching for[1], it doesn't say anything about taking guns away. Just like you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon. Also, there's no way in hell any group of citizens can fight the US army these days so it seems like a moot point. You don't need automatic weapons to defend your house from intruders, but for some reason our leaders tell these kids that the solution is to shut up, wear invisible back-packs and learn CPR.
[1] https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/
[1] https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/
> there's no way in hell any group of citizens can fight the US army these days so it seems like a moot point.
Afghanistan is the 8th poorest nation in the world [1]
The US spent over a decade and over a trillion dollars fighting there [2]
We did not decisively "win" by any measure [3]
[1] https://financesonline.com/a-list-of-third-world-countries-1...
[2] https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-...
[3] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-will-never-win-t...
Afghanistan is the 8th poorest nation in the world [1]
The US spent over a decade and over a trillion dollars fighting there [2]
We did not decisively "win" by any measure [3]
[1] https://financesonline.com/a-list-of-third-world-countries-1...
[2] https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-...
[3] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-will-never-win-t...
You state:
> you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon
Generally speaking, this statement speaks to a lack of information regarding what semi-automatic is or what it means. Most firearms sold today are semi-automatic. Banning semi-automatic firearms bans the majority of firearms.
That you later go on to state "You don't need automatic weapons to defend..." implies to me that you've conflated automatic and semi-automatic. You cannot conflate those two terms in good faith and claim to be having a reasonable and informed debate.
You also assert that nobody's saying anything about taking guns away, but Hillary Clinton (and other politicians) repeatedly called for Australian-style gun buybacks, which were mandatory, which are the same as confiscation. I'll broadly agree that it isn't the popular sentiment, but suggesting that nobody's calling for it is disingenuous at the very least.
Moreover, from your link, the following statements are at odds with your assertion that the second amendment isn't under attack.
> Weapons of war have no place in our communities. Our nation requires a comprehensive assault weapons ban
> Limiting high-powered weapons to the military has worked elsewhere to eliminate the opportunity for mass shootings
> These magazines are devastating and need to be banned.
Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater". That has been covered here by me, by others, and by prominent first amendment attorneys all over the map, but despite the common misconception, there's no law or regulation that prohibits you from yelling fire in a movie theater.
Nobody ever believes that, so please enjoy some citations:
* https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
* https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
* http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-st...
> you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon
Generally speaking, this statement speaks to a lack of information regarding what semi-automatic is or what it means. Most firearms sold today are semi-automatic. Banning semi-automatic firearms bans the majority of firearms.
That you later go on to state "You don't need automatic weapons to defend..." implies to me that you've conflated automatic and semi-automatic. You cannot conflate those two terms in good faith and claim to be having a reasonable and informed debate.
You also assert that nobody's saying anything about taking guns away, but Hillary Clinton (and other politicians) repeatedly called for Australian-style gun buybacks, which were mandatory, which are the same as confiscation. I'll broadly agree that it isn't the popular sentiment, but suggesting that nobody's calling for it is disingenuous at the very least.
Moreover, from your link, the following statements are at odds with your assertion that the second amendment isn't under attack.
> Weapons of war have no place in our communities. Our nation requires a comprehensive assault weapons ban
> Limiting high-powered weapons to the military has worked elsewhere to eliminate the opportunity for mass shootings
> These magazines are devastating and need to be banned.
Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater". That has been covered here by me, by others, and by prominent first amendment attorneys all over the map, but despite the common misconception, there's no law or regulation that prohibits you from yelling fire in a movie theater.
Nobody ever believes that, so please enjoy some citations:
* https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
* https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
* http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-st...
> repeatedly called for Australian-style gun buybacks, which were mandatory, which are the same as confiscation.
They were mandatory, however gun owners with reasonable reasons (i.e. hunting, sport, recreation) were free to acquire a license to keep their guns (excluding military style weapons). You can currently acquire a semi-automatic rifle (under 10 rounds) with the proper licenses and reasons (farm worker, sport etc.)[1]
- There were no repercussions for illegal guns being handed in (someone handed in a rocket launcher).
- There were no laws preventing someone acquiring a license to keep their gun if they wanted (within the laws which were introduced).
- No police invaded homes to take weapons by force during the amnesty.
Australia's gun-amnesties/buybacks were not the same as confiscation.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Firearms...
They were mandatory, however gun owners with reasonable reasons (i.e. hunting, sport, recreation) were free to acquire a license to keep their guns (excluding military style weapons). You can currently acquire a semi-automatic rifle (under 10 rounds) with the proper licenses and reasons (farm worker, sport etc.)[1]
- There were no repercussions for illegal guns being handed in (someone handed in a rocket launcher).
- There were no laws preventing someone acquiring a license to keep their gun if they wanted (within the laws which were introduced).
- No police invaded homes to take weapons by force during the amnesty.
Australia's gun-amnesties/buybacks were not the same as confiscation.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Firearms...
> Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater".
I thought the 'mistake' would be assuming that this action is prohibited even in the event of a fire.
Now I question if it is assumed to apply unconditionally, even during a fire. And if so, what is the appropriate way to deal with such an event
I thought the 'mistake' would be assuming that this action is prohibited even in the event of a fire.
Now I question if it is assumed to apply unconditionally, even during a fire. And if so, what is the appropriate way to deal with such an event
So, _Schenck_ has largely been overturned on a number of occasions, but the following (untested) likely still holds as punishable (but not forbidden against through ante-hoc regulations):
* _Falsely_ shouting fire
* in a crowded theater
* for the purpose of imminently inciting harm to others
* _Falsely_ shouting fire
* in a crowded theater
* for the purpose of imminently inciting harm to others
Wow, just wow.
We started at submission about Google employees waving around a paper tiger petition, we proceeded to top ranked reminder to everyone of DARPA and how military funding is the One True Way, then on to crypto export controls, rolling onward into a gun control debate, conflating semi-automatic weapons with rocket launchers, and finally into yes, the meaning behind "fire in a crowded theater."
The comment section on HN is now second only to the comments from Yahoo news stories. Keep up the great work everyone.
We started at submission about Google employees waving around a paper tiger petition, we proceeded to top ranked reminder to everyone of DARPA and how military funding is the One True Way, then on to crypto export controls, rolling onward into a gun control debate, conflating semi-automatic weapons with rocket launchers, and finally into yes, the meaning behind "fire in a crowded theater."
The comment section on HN is now second only to the comments from Yahoo news stories. Keep up the great work everyone.
That is obviously what is meant by the idiom - surely you are aware of that? How are you not being disingenuous on this point?
To be fair, the thing that is most oft intended by the idiom is "look, if the cherished first amendment can be restricted, then so too can the second amendment".
It isn't a law, and where I say "might" in my follow-up, it should not be confused with "is" or "will". There are no laws that forbid you from exclaiming fire in a theater. People think there are because Oliver Wendell Holmes made a clumsy aside while explaining a bad decision that has since been overturned.
Either way, the real point to this is that a punishment for negligent use of one's rights (e.g., falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater for the purposes of causing harm to others) is still not remotely the same as banning free exercise of that right, or converting that right into a privilege through licensure, as is being suggested as rational compromises for the second amendment, predicated on a clumsy and wrong-headed interpretation on the first.
We might all prefer it if you had to obtain a license to speak in a theater, on the grounds that yelling fire in one might prove too dangerous a responsibility for average citizens, but I think most of us would agree that it would violate the first amendment quite heinously. The only way to imagine that equivalent restrictions are less heinous when applied to the second amendment is if one takes the second amendment less seriously as a "real" right, or to imagine that such restrictions are common on the first amendment. It isn't less real a right, and such restrictions are not common on the first, despite misuse of the aforementioned idiom.
It isn't a law, and where I say "might" in my follow-up, it should not be confused with "is" or "will". There are no laws that forbid you from exclaiming fire in a theater. People think there are because Oliver Wendell Holmes made a clumsy aside while explaining a bad decision that has since been overturned.
Either way, the real point to this is that a punishment for negligent use of one's rights (e.g., falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater for the purposes of causing harm to others) is still not remotely the same as banning free exercise of that right, or converting that right into a privilege through licensure, as is being suggested as rational compromises for the second amendment, predicated on a clumsy and wrong-headed interpretation on the first.
We might all prefer it if you had to obtain a license to speak in a theater, on the grounds that yelling fire in one might prove too dangerous a responsibility for average citizens, but I think most of us would agree that it would violate the first amendment quite heinously. The only way to imagine that equivalent restrictions are less heinous when applied to the second amendment is if one takes the second amendment less seriously as a "real" right, or to imagine that such restrictions are common on the first amendment. It isn't less real a right, and such restrictions are not common on the first, despite misuse of the aforementioned idiom.
The average Joe or Jane gun owner in the United States can not purchase, and does not own, automatic weapons.
Literally tens of millions of responsible Americans walk around, every day, carrying semi-automatic weapons, and this is not a problem.
This is also true in the Czech Republic! Shall-issue, just like Texas. They are one of the safest countries in the EU.
You are far more likely to be shot by a cop, than by a citizen legally carrying a semi-automatic weapon.
Literally tens of millions of responsible Americans walk around, every day, carrying semi-automatic weapons, and this is not a problem.
This is also true in the Czech Republic! Shall-issue, just like Texas. They are one of the safest countries in the EU.
You are far more likely to be shot by a cop, than by a citizen legally carrying a semi-automatic weapon.
> Literally tens of millions of responsible Americans walk around, every day, carrying semi-automatic weapons, and this is not a problem.
The idea that 'this is not a problem' is exactly the thing under dispute, so I don't think it should be cheerfully asserted
Objectors to this climate of easy access to firearms -wrong or right- will point to things like:
* criminal gun violence and mass shootings (a phenomenon that is staggeringly rare in most other comparable nations) but also to
* accidental gun deaths, frequently including of children, to
* suicides facilitated by this easy access to firearms, to
* the trigger-happiness of American cops being directly related to the significant likelihood that anyone those cops interact with is armed, compared to countries like the Australia, Japan, or New Zealand.
They also point to a political climate in which research into gun violence is blocked, and where measures such as universal background checks are supported by huge number citizens, but the political situation prevents these from being enacted.
The idea that 'this is not a problem' is exactly the thing under dispute, so I don't think it should be cheerfully asserted
Objectors to this climate of easy access to firearms -wrong or right- will point to things like:
* criminal gun violence and mass shootings (a phenomenon that is staggeringly rare in most other comparable nations) but also to
* accidental gun deaths, frequently including of children, to
* suicides facilitated by this easy access to firearms, to
* the trigger-happiness of American cops being directly related to the significant likelihood that anyone those cops interact with is armed, compared to countries like the Australia, Japan, or New Zealand.
They also point to a political climate in which research into gun violence is blocked, and where measures such as universal background checks are supported by huge number citizens, but the political situation prevents these from being enacted.
> The idea that 'this is not a problem' is exactly the thing under dispute, so I don't think it should be cheerfully asserted.
There are sixteen million Americans with concealed-carry licenses, plus fourteen states that allow for "constitutional carry" (e.g., no license required).
(Keep in mind that I do think that we should require training and licensing for concealed carry, although this needs to be balanced with not imposing an undue economic burden or disenfranchising minorities)
According to the Violence Policy Center -- a very solidly anti-gun group -- there were 27 murders committed by licensed concealed carriers in 2017 across the United States. That's a murder rate of 0.16 per 100,000 people.
By comparison, the total UK murder rate for the same year was six times that.
Likewise, the Czech Republic, which also has a lower murder rate than the UK, has "shall-issue" concealed carry licensing for gun owners -- just like Texas -- and the majority of Czech gun owners have such a license.
I think it's fair to say that concealed carriers are not the problem.
There are sixteen million Americans with concealed-carry licenses, plus fourteen states that allow for "constitutional carry" (e.g., no license required).
(Keep in mind that I do think that we should require training and licensing for concealed carry, although this needs to be balanced with not imposing an undue economic burden or disenfranchising minorities)
According to the Violence Policy Center -- a very solidly anti-gun group -- there were 27 murders committed by licensed concealed carriers in 2017 across the United States. That's a murder rate of 0.16 per 100,000 people.
By comparison, the total UK murder rate for the same year was six times that.
Likewise, the Czech Republic, which also has a lower murder rate than the UK, has "shall-issue" concealed carry licensing for gun owners -- just like Texas -- and the majority of Czech gun owners have such a license.
I think it's fair to say that concealed carriers are not the problem.
Bear in mind, my above comment highlighted that for objectors the issue is far wider than murder, and also involves the presence of accessible weaponry's influence on: accidental deaths, suicides, and drivers of militarization of police, all of which were introduced before your response - and absolutely none of which would even be visible through the statistical lens you have chosen to employ.
>you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon
That's a ridiculous statement to many people. Most handguns are semi-automatic weapons and you will find little agreement from pro-2nd amendment people to eliminate both handguns and any rifles that aren't muzzle-loaders or bolt-action.
That's a ridiculous statement to many people. Most handguns are semi-automatic weapons and you will find little agreement from pro-2nd amendment people to eliminate both handguns and any rifles that aren't muzzle-loaders or bolt-action.
Regardless of whether you agree with the current interpretation of the second ammendment or not, it's hard to deny that those currently wishing to re-interpret it are suggesting an application that will impose new, more strict limits, on ordinary citizens and their rights to bear arms.
Note: the statement above does not choose a side.
Note: the statement above does not choose a side.
I'm not sure if you meant to imply that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental human right but if so I think that's a bit of a stretch.
'Fundamental rights' (under US law) I think is defensible as fundamental is treated as an alias for constitutional so guns are in.
'Fundamental human rights' to me implies broad and fundamental applicability, i.e. the UN declarations and covenants on human rights, which don't iterate guns as a right.
Case in point, when non-US countries talk about human rights, none of them are talking about guns.
'Fundamental rights' (under US law) I think is defensible as fundamental is treated as an alias for constitutional so guns are in.
'Fundamental human rights' to me implies broad and fundamental applicability, i.e. the UN declarations and covenants on human rights, which don't iterate guns as a right.
Case in point, when non-US countries talk about human rights, none of them are talking about guns.
I'd argue that fundamental human rights means rights that exist inherently regardless of whether the UN or any given country recognizes them.
My feeling is that people have a right to self defense, which would require them to have access to some effective weapon. In theory that could be a club or blade rather than a firearm; however, currently firearms are the only (somewhat) socially acceptable weapon to carry in the united states.
My feeling is that people have a right to self defense, which would require them to have access to some effective weapon. In theory that could be a club or blade rather than a firearm; however, currently firearms are the only (somewhat) socially acceptable weapon to carry in the united states.
I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate?
For every right that most people hold evident, you'll find people who disagree. This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.
For every right that most people hold evident, you'll find people who disagree. This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.
> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate?
The US was built upon the idea that rights are inherent and not granted to citizens by a government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The US was built upon the idea that rights are inherent and not granted to citizens by a government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e.
> This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.
Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are)
Mind blown huh?
> This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.
Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are)
Mind blown huh?
That's what they believed, but it isn't necessary. It's easier to see these arising out of very fundamental parts of human nature.
Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea.
Therein you have a basis for the first and second amendment, i.e. freedom to think and freedom to defend yourself.
Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea.
Therein you have a basis for the first and second amendment, i.e. freedom to think and freedom to defend yourself.
> Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea.
Curious wording. The vast majority of even modern human history seems to provide an incredible amount of contradictory evidence—at least if you’ll grant that “forced” can also mean socialized into a certain cultural and ideological narrative from birth. Sure, there are notable moments when resistance forms quietly, and perhaps even makes its way into the public sphere. However, resistance does not appear to me to be a default human trait. That’s usually only found in a smaller portion of what is typically non-boat-rocking humanity—those who hope to convince their fellow citizens to join them. The majority of humans appear to rarely make it habit to question anything at all.
Curious wording. The vast majority of even modern human history seems to provide an incredible amount of contradictory evidence—at least if you’ll grant that “forced” can also mean socialized into a certain cultural and ideological narrative from birth. Sure, there are notable moments when resistance forms quietly, and perhaps even makes its way into the public sphere. However, resistance does not appear to me to be a default human trait. That’s usually only found in a smaller portion of what is typically non-boat-rocking humanity—those who hope to convince their fellow citizens to join them. The majority of humans appear to rarely make it habit to question anything at all.
Well, that's the interesting thing, isn't it? We only resist ideas that appear to be forced on us and there are plenty of sneaky ways around that.
I’m saying the vast majority of humans don’t even recognize when ideas are forced on them.
> Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back.
Well not that I'm Christian, but Christian teaching is basically the opposite of this (Matthew 5:39 - i.e. turn the other cheek). And Gandhi's resistance was also an example of the opposite. In fact the opposite is the only way to deescalate a fight (or, as the US chooses to do, create the biggest weapons, but isn't that then affecting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument?)
> Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea.
Really? Advertising, religion, nation states, even your belief that these are "natural" laws are examples of your inherent bias. As a smaller example, even politeness - civility - is a counter example.
Well not that I'm Christian, but Christian teaching is basically the opposite of this (Matthew 5:39 - i.e. turn the other cheek). And Gandhi's resistance was also an example of the opposite. In fact the opposite is the only way to deescalate a fight (or, as the US chooses to do, create the biggest weapons, but isn't that then affecting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument?)
> Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea.
Really? Advertising, religion, nation states, even your belief that these are "natural" laws are examples of your inherent bias. As a smaller example, even politeness - civility - is a counter example.
The fact that people have to be taught other ways goes against saying it's human nature, doesn't it? Why would you teach someone to do things they already do?
And then you bring up every method of manipulation as if people don't hate all of those things. Why would we need to invent clever tricks to manipulate people if it was human nature to like it?
Sure, we're plenty effective both at hurting others and manipulating people, but it seems odd to express examples of our capability at doing that to unwilling people as evidence that we like those things being done to us...
Why would we have to go to such lengths to develop these capabilities if it was something we naturally liked? You're kind of proving the opposite of the point you think you are here....
And then you bring up every method of manipulation as if people don't hate all of those things. Why would we need to invent clever tricks to manipulate people if it was human nature to like it?
Sure, we're plenty effective both at hurting others and manipulating people, but it seems odd to express examples of our capability at doing that to unwilling people as evidence that we like those things being done to us...
Why would we have to go to such lengths to develop these capabilities if it was something we naturally liked? You're kind of proving the opposite of the point you think you are here....
Sigh.
If you want to be closed minded, and not accept that you are choosing your axioms in the same way as someone else exposed to different upbringings is - as per my examples, then I guess I have no chance of convincing you otherwise.
If you want to be closed minded, and not accept that you are choosing your axioms in the same way as someone else exposed to different upbringings is - as per my examples, then I guess I have no chance of convincing you otherwise.
Well, you seem to be under the misconception that I think these are some kind of platonic ideals or whatnot. There was a time when the law tried to describe the values of the people rather than to dictate it and they came up with common law and some ideas about human rights after considering human nature and what did and did not work.
You can say there's construction there, but there's a limit to it. I mean, just as you can't simply construct a functional bridge out of anything you want, neither can you reasonably construct any sort of right and have a functioning society. There are both positive and negative rights, tensions among the rights of different people, and responsibilities imposed on individuals and society by any particular conception of rights.
You can say there's construction there, but there's a limit to it. I mean, just as you can't simply construct a functional bridge out of anything you want, neither can you reasonably construct any sort of right and have a functioning society. There are both positive and negative rights, tensions among the rights of different people, and responsibilities imposed on individuals and society by any particular conception of rights.
> Which is what the US Constitution is.
OP quoted the Declaration of Independence, which is neither law nor agreement.
OP quoted the Declaration of Independence, which is neither law nor agreement.
And yet the rights of US citizens appear to stem from a fairly elaborate system of humans interpreting the constitution of the United States.
> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate?
From our own human nature, actually. Think about this for a minute. Would a normal person be willing to believe something because you were forced to? If someone was violently attacked, would they not fight back?
By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it.
Now, the current conflict is being caused by pitting these against each other. Because people believe they are unsafe because of people who own guns or use hate speech, you now have two groups of people who believe that the other group is making them unsafe.
This is ironic, because we're actually becoming statistically safer over time, but it does lead to some very real conflict because people believe there's another group out there that wants to harm them, instead of realizing that both sides really just want to protect themselves, barring a few fringe whackos on either side.
From our own human nature, actually. Think about this for a minute. Would a normal person be willing to believe something because you were forced to? If someone was violently attacked, would they not fight back?
By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it.
Now, the current conflict is being caused by pitting these against each other. Because people believe they are unsafe because of people who own guns or use hate speech, you now have two groups of people who believe that the other group is making them unsafe.
This is ironic, because we're actually becoming statistically safer over time, but it does lead to some very real conflict because people believe there's another group out there that wants to harm them, instead of realizing that both sides really just want to protect themselves, barring a few fringe whackos on either side.
If there are natural human rights, what does that mean for, e.g., prisoners? Is the right to personal freedom not a natural right? If it is, can natural rights be taken away? Under what conditions? Or is imprisonment a breach of natural rights, and what does that imply?
It's pretty hard to pin down what natural rights are. That a society ought to consider the limits of normal human behaviour I don't dispute, but that just informs the rights a society grants its members. Rights are still a human social construct.
It's pretty hard to pin down what natural rights are. That a society ought to consider the limits of normal human behaviour I don't dispute, but that just informs the rights a society grants its members. Rights are still a human social construct.
Obviously they can be, it's just there's a cost to it.
We value our safety from, e.g., rapists more than the rapist's liberty.
We value our safety from, e.g., rapists more than the rapist's liberty.
> By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead force government to work with that human nature instead of contrary to it.
If human nature is ultimately "not controllable by law", then that would certainly apply broadly, not just to cherry picked aspects of it.
Certainly assault, murder, rape, theft, harassment, abuse, cheating, and the like are facets of feral humanity; just as much as positive traits like self-preservation, compassion, parental instincts, social bonding, etc. Law usually stands in a directly contrary position to the former list, to wide agreement.
If human nature is ultimately "not controllable by law", then that would certainly apply broadly, not just to cherry picked aspects of it.
Certainly assault, murder, rape, theft, harassment, abuse, cheating, and the like are facets of feral humanity; just as much as positive traits like self-preservation, compassion, parental instincts, social bonding, etc. Law usually stands in a directly contrary position to the former list, to wide agreement.
It's better to work with instead of against our natures. There are certainly things that can stand improvement.
I agree, and will expand with this:
Codified rights are effectively statements of belief of a government, to which they are binding themselves. As a statement of belief, there's no legal structures or arguments upholding them. They are simply installed by declaration (either dictatorially or by some measure of consensus) as an official part of the government's world view.
Codified rights are effectively statements of belief of a government, to which they are binding themselves. As a statement of belief, there's no legal structures or arguments upholding them. They are simply installed by declaration (either dictatorially or by some measure of consensus) as an official part of the government's world view.
John Locke talks extensively about Natural Rights (and he was the source of inspiration to America's founding fathers). His Second Treatise of Government goes deep into his explanation.
There have been many thinkers that have challenged Locke. I am currently reading the Second Treatise to try and really understand Locke's position before I make up my mind.
There have been many thinkers that have challenged Locke. I am currently reading the Second Treatise to try and really understand Locke's position before I make up my mind.
My belief is that natural rights are defined by God and therefore exist regardless of whether people agree with them or not. Sort of the rights equivalent of divine command theory.
IME there are as many interpretations of divine law as there are individuals who believe in a god.
To me that's kind of like the sound a falling tree makes when no-one is there to hear it. As I see it, rights exist in the context of a social framework that defines the limits of acceptable behaviour. They can be seen as actually curtailing freedoms, since if we're defining rights, we're also implying there are things an entity does not have a right to. In any case, a right is not very meaningful to me if there is no system in place to ensure it is respected.
This is, of course, not an argument about moral rigts and wrongs, just a pragmatic one about how rights work.
This is, of course, not an argument about moral rigts and wrongs, just a pragmatic one about how rights work.
self defense is a human right only in a lawless society. The existence of the state makes it necessary for it to have the monopoly of the application of force, and all matters should be resolved in a civil court of law. Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense. Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.. while that is the definition of a lawless society (a society where the state has no way to impose the rule of law). I get it, guns are fun. But a human right? Definitely not
> Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense.
If that's the case, I don't want to live anywhere else. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, they pose a deadly threat to my family. In what country would you not feel the same way?
> Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.
Not all states are benevolent, nor are they guaranteed to stay benevolent. Many Americans are wary of our gov't (and IMO rightly so.)
If that's the case, I don't want to live anywhere else. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, they pose a deadly threat to my family. In what country would you not feel the same way?
> Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.
Not all states are benevolent, nor are they guaranteed to stay benevolent. Many Americans are wary of our gov't (and IMO rightly so.)
You make a great point. Police forces have been sued for responding slowly or not at all to threats on lives and found to have no responsibility to respond to a particular crime.
Many people don’t actually know this, but police has “no duty to protect”, meaning that they can perfectly legally not Intervene even if they know with 100% certainty people are being hurt or murdered. Look up “no duty to protect”.
I know this from personal experience to be fact.
Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?
Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.
Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.
>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Well, yeah.
There are no illusions that a group of people with dubious levels of training could square off against the government and come out on top. However, you can certainly raise the cost of occupation _significantly_.
Despite the US rolling into the middle east with all of its technological might, planes, helicopters, and modern armor, its still bands of people with guns and bombs who, years after "mission accomplished", drag the conflict onward.
Well, yeah.
There are no illusions that a group of people with dubious levels of training could square off against the government and come out on top. However, you can certainly raise the cost of occupation _significantly_.
Despite the US rolling into the middle east with all of its technological might, planes, helicopters, and modern armor, its still bands of people with guns and bombs who, years after "mission accomplished", drag the conflict onward.
People seem pretty ignorant of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Who is the threat to invade the United States? Last time I checked, Canada and Mexico are pretty peaceful Nations and Russia is in charge of our current president.
> Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?
The loss of property, and the violation of one's home and sense of security are real harms. But the point is not to make the violator pay, so much as it is to merely prevent an injustice.
And many (I believe most) defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing the weapon. Most people do not relish the thought of taking another's life.
> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.
It makes more sense when you realize that there is significant overlap between "gun owners" and "past or present military service".
The loss of property, and the violation of one's home and sense of security are real harms. But the point is not to make the violator pay, so much as it is to merely prevent an injustice.
And many (I believe most) defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing the weapon. Most people do not relish the thought of taking another's life.
> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.
It makes more sense when you realize that there is significant overlap between "gun owners" and "past or present military service".
If u intend to "brandish" a gun and you are not prepared to use it. Then you are the person who needs to be afraid for their life .
As I agree with your statement, I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. One can be under threat, prepared to use a weapon, brandish it, and yet not actually use it. Discipline and restraint are import aspects of firearm training.
>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?
I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. I'm not going to wait and find out if you would attempt to kill me as a result of discovering you are burglarizing my home.
>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Nobody is under any illusions that the US military could roll through with tanks and cluster bombs and annihilate any opposition, but I doubt the government is particularly keen on ruling over a pile of ruined infrastructure. If that's the case, they instead have to deal with a large population of armed guerillas, which the Mid-East conflicts have proven the US is rather poor at dealing with. To say nothing of the fact that a large portion of the US military would defect upon being told to fire upon the people they've signed up to defend. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to deter the government from using overt force.
I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. I'm not going to wait and find out if you would attempt to kill me as a result of discovering you are burglarizing my home.
>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Nobody is under any illusions that the US military could roll through with tanks and cluster bombs and annihilate any opposition, but I doubt the government is particularly keen on ruling over a pile of ruined infrastructure. If that's the case, they instead have to deal with a large population of armed guerillas, which the Mid-East conflicts have proven the US is rather poor at dealing with. To say nothing of the fact that a large portion of the US military would defect upon being told to fire upon the people they've signed up to defend. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to deter the government from using overt force.
To jump from
> I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be.
to shooting someone would in most countries be considered a illogical and reckless act.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said.
> I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be.
to shooting someone would in most countries be considered a illogical and reckless act.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said.
>I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said.
Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly.
People have been murdered by burglars many times so you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that's not an outcome.
In your ideal world, do you prefer that the victims allow the burglar to eliminate them as a witness?
Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly.
People have been murdered by burglars many times so you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that's not an outcome.
In your ideal world, do you prefer that the victims allow the burglar to eliminate them as a witness?
> Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly.
That is assuming a lot of thinking from a scenario that started as:
> I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be.
Even assuming what you said, the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation.
That is assuming a lot of thinking from a scenario that started as:
> I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be.
Even assuming what you said, the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation.
> ... the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation.
The right to kill in self defense exists in many countries but I belive in most countries it will result in an investigation and you'll probably have to go to court to convince a judge that you had
1. Reason to fear for your or someone elses life
2. considered (and if possible: tried) other reasonable options.
I think it would be extremely cruel to punish someone for defending themselves or someone else.
Also keep in mind that stopping an attacker without the option of hurting them seriously is way harder than if you are allowed to use any means.
The right to kill in self defense exists in many countries but I belive in most countries it will result in an investigation and you'll probably have to go to court to convince a judge that you had
1. Reason to fear for your or someone elses life
2. considered (and if possible: tried) other reasonable options.
I think it would be extremely cruel to punish someone for defending themselves or someone else.
Also keep in mind that stopping an attacker without the option of hurting them seriously is way harder than if you are allowed to use any means.
[deleted]
Committing a home invasion, whether to steal, to harm, or something else, is a dangerous, immoral, illogical and reckless act. Lethal force is a justified response, period.
Proportional response is a thing, and the state having a monopoly on deadly force is a good thing IMO.
Using deadly force to counter a purely material crime is madness.
Using deadly force to counter a purely material crime is madness.
Deadly force IS a proportional response to a home invasion - in both the moral and legal sense.
Its not the victim's obligation to quiz the home invader on their intentions before they act to protect themselves, their family and/or their property. A person knowingly and foreseeably puts their own life up for forfeit by invading another's home... and for what - a material crime, as you say? (But I hope we all acknowledge that the stakes are often far more serious and irrevocable than having your ipad stolen while you sleep).
The big open secret here is, no government today or in the past has had a monopoly on deadly force (nor will they ever). They only have a monopoly on punishing deadly force via the judicial system.
Deadly force can be legally prohibited and morally justified. It can be legally justified and morally abhorrent.
Its not the victim's obligation to quiz the home invader on their intentions before they act to protect themselves, their family and/or their property. A person knowingly and foreseeably puts their own life up for forfeit by invading another's home... and for what - a material crime, as you say? (But I hope we all acknowledge that the stakes are often far more serious and irrevocable than having your ipad stolen while you sleep).
The big open secret here is, no government today or in the past has had a monopoly on deadly force (nor will they ever). They only have a monopoly on punishing deadly force via the judicial system.
Deadly force can be legally prohibited and morally justified. It can be legally justified and morally abhorrent.
Because you have no way of knowing, beforehand, an intruder's exact intentions.
> Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?
Why would a guy who grabs a cop's gun and waves it around pointing it at people for a thrill have to pay with the actions of their life when another cop shoots them?
>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Do you really think gun owners would line up on the field to take on the military in the open? Ruling over a country where half of the people are supporters and the other half are armed dissidents would be impossible regardless of military strength. Just look at the failures of the last Iraq war to see how a tiny fraction of the population was able to throw off the whole thing.
Why would a guy who grabs a cop's gun and waves it around pointing it at people for a thrill have to pay with the actions of their life when another cop shoots them?
>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Do you really think gun owners would line up on the field to take on the military in the open? Ruling over a country where half of the people are supporters and the other half are armed dissidents would be impossible regardless of military strength. Just look at the failures of the last Iraq war to see how a tiny fraction of the population was able to throw off the whole thing.
>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?
They have the option of wearing a bullet proof vest or use trained monkeys to do their bidding.
They have the option of wearing a bullet proof vest or use trained monkeys to do their bidding.
> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Note that the US military is sworn to the constitution, not to any current administration. When anti-citizen measures are proposed, the military aligns with the citizens.
Note that the US military is sworn to the constitution, not to any current administration. When anti-citizen measures are proposed, the military aligns with the citizens.
[deleted]
Because a man's home is his castle.
> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Nope, some of us citizens believe that the US military ranks will by and large not obey unlawful/unconstitutional orders to attack its own citizenry on our soil. If they choose to do so anyway - good luck, there's more of us than there are of them.
> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?
Nope, some of us citizens believe that the US military ranks will by and large not obey unlawful/unconstitutional orders to attack its own citizenry on our soil. If they choose to do so anyway - good luck, there's more of us than there are of them.
>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?
They shouldn't. But what guarantee does someone have that the intruder won't harm them?
They shouldn't. But what guarantee does someone have that the intruder won't harm them?
This strikes me as a trolling comment. But if you're serious, and if you can pull the idea that the state owns all manifestations of the application of force out of thin air, then there is no limit to how many of your other human rights that state will take away from you. By giving up the right to self defense, something so fundamental to all living things, you effectively chain yourself in irons and tell your masters to do with you as they will. That's basically North Korea today.
> Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense.
Really? Your profile was created 15 minutes ago, and this seems like an absurd statement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
Really? Your profile was created 15 minutes ago, and this seems like an absurd statement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
You're quite incorrect. The state properly has a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force (and none other) under objective laws and legal processes. But self-defense is an emergency, and there is no rational argument to claim that one may not protect oneself, one's family, or one's property against beasts or thugs. On the other hand, if you kill someone in self-defense, you had better be prepared to explain how necessary it was, in the court of law; which is exactly how things work in the USA.
If one is so depraved as to argue that self-defense is unacceptable as such, then one should be prepared to live and die as a slave to the first thug or dictator who walks by one's neighborhood or country.
If one is so depraved as to argue that self-defense is unacceptable as such, then one should be prepared to live and die as a slave to the first thug or dictator who walks by one's neighborhood or country.
Self defense should definitely be a right, and I'm not American - I'm Swedish. There's a big difference between responding with full force, or as Swedish law allows, responding with reasonable force proportional to the harm that you're at risk of.
Any limits to the right to intervene should not go further than what the state can fill in for. Since the police is not everpresent in our lives (and shouldn't be!), there will inevitably be situations where you need to fend for yourself, since you can't always just wait for police to arrive.
You can put this through some translation software of your choice;
http://www.domarbloggen.se/sodertorns-tingsratt/ansvarsfrihe...
Any limits to the right to intervene should not go further than what the state can fill in for. Since the police is not everpresent in our lives (and shouldn't be!), there will inevitably be situations where you need to fend for yourself, since you can't always just wait for police to arrive.
You can put this through some translation software of your choice;
http://www.domarbloggen.se/sodertorns-tingsratt/ansvarsfrihe...
That's an incredible amount of trust to have in the state. Have governments shown to be infallible or incapable of abuse of power? You can argue guns aren't essential to protect yourself but I don't think you can argue that protecting yourself isn't an innate human right.
The Catholic Church teaches that killing in self-defense in self defense is legitimate. In fact, it can even be a grave duty. So that means this is hardly just an American idea.
I can only reply to myself (low score?) but my point was not that self defense is not justifiable in extreme cases (though I made that point. I didn't choose my words wisely).
What I mean is that by no means is the citizen expected to engage in vigilante justice or apply force against the state. That leads to lawlessness and was kind of hinted by the parent comment. The state should have the monopoly of force _to apply in a lawful manner and mantain the rule of law_
The state decides what a lawful manner is, thats about as useful a statement as "it's not illegal when the president does it". The states only rules as long as a certain X% of the populace agress with it. The second amendment tries to balance that X so that it doesn't become something like o ly 1% of the populace needs to agree with the government for it to maintain power.
There's arguments to be made as to what percentage of the populace needs to agree for a stable society to be formed. Both extremes of 100% and 0% are obviously bad as you either get no agreement or total dictatorship.
Just saying that you should listen to the government though ignores the majority of the history of governments
There's arguments to be made as to what percentage of the populace needs to agree for a stable society to be formed. Both extremes of 100% and 0% are obviously bad as you either get no agreement or total dictatorship.
Just saying that you should listen to the government though ignores the majority of the history of governments
Vigilantism isn't self defense. Even in states with the strongest self defense laws (e.g. stand your ground laws), you can only use force to defend yourself (and I think also your family or immediate companions) when you are threatened. You can't just prowl around shooting suspected drug dealers.
[deleted]
> lawless society
Things aren't black and white. Every country is lawless to a certain degree. Otherwise there wouldn't be any robberies in countries that aren't "lawless" (whatever that means). One difference between EU and US is that a robber has a decent chance of being shot in US and not in EU meaning you become a sitting duck the moment you stop living the socialist life that state deems appropriate.
Things aren't black and white. Every country is lawless to a certain degree. Otherwise there wouldn't be any robberies in countries that aren't "lawless" (whatever that means). One difference between EU and US is that a robber has a decent chance of being shot in US and not in EU meaning you become a sitting duck the moment you stop living the socialist life that state deems appropriate.
> Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense.
I think you are wrong. At least in Norway where I've lived for the last few decades I'm pretty certain people are found not guilty because of self defense.
> Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.. while that is the definition of a lawless society (a society where the state has no way to impose the rule of law).
Persecuting minorities where completely lawful in nazi Germany.
I guess you should be looking for another word because as much as I'm against lawlessness that doesn't cut it here IMO.
I think you are wrong. At least in Norway where I've lived for the last few decades I'm pretty certain people are found not guilty because of self defense.
> Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.. while that is the definition of a lawless society (a society where the state has no way to impose the rule of law).
Persecuting minorities where completely lawful in nazi Germany.
I guess you should be looking for another word because as much as I'm against lawlessness that doesn't cut it here IMO.
..only in a lawless society?
Nazi Germany was a country full of laws. (I realize I am Godwin’s law-ing, but the parent implied that self-defense ought not be a right in a society with legal institutions and laws; Nazi Germany is a perfect counter example of how “laws” aren’t always just and that a fear of government is a legitimate concern.)
Nazi Germany was a country full of laws. (I realize I am Godwin’s law-ing, but the parent implied that self-defense ought not be a right in a society with legal institutions and laws; Nazi Germany is a perfect counter example of how “laws” aren’t always just and that a fear of government is a legitimate concern.)
The existence of the state makes it necessary for it to have the monopoly of the application of force
Note that like most other points made in discussions involving "rights," this is an opinion, presented as if it were an objective fact.
Another opinion is that you have only the rights that you can defend. That one, at least, has some empirical proof behind it.
Note that like most other points made in discussions involving "rights," this is an opinion, presented as if it were an objective fact.
Another opinion is that you have only the rights that you can defend. That one, at least, has some empirical proof behind it.
Why do you pay your taxes? Is it altruism on your part, or fear of retaliation if you don´t? What happens if you were more powerful than the IRS (or whatever force the IRS might send your way to coerce you into paying your debts)?
How can a state impose a law on criminals if criminals are stronger than itself? See mexico for example, where drug cartels are arguably stronger than the state in certain parts they control. Or brasilian favelas.
This part is not an opinion my friend.
Also I don´t claim to have invented this concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Crypto is a human right only in a lawless society. Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to complete privacy even from the govrenment.
Even more, many think they should be able to hide their actions from the state...that is the definition of a lawless society.
I get it, HTTPS is fun. But a human right? Definitely not.
Even more, many think they should be able to hide their actions from the state...that is the definition of a lawless society.
I get it, HTTPS is fun. But a human right? Definitely not.
It would appear that your sarcasm went undetected.
The gravity of the second amendment isn't arms per se, it's the right to retain enough personal power to repel a dictator from taking over the government and just as importantly, making it so that even if a dictator succeeds, the country will be ungovernable for them.
So we should substitute 'strong cryptography' for 'arms' and see what happens.
It is funny you mention that actually - as a personal anecdote, I can say that many of my friends who happen to be advocates for free distro of crypto tech - or more commonly, cryptocurrencies - also tend to be fairly strong 2A advocates.
TL;DR; - IMO there is some significant crossover between crypto* people, and 2A people.
TL;DR; - IMO there is some significant crossover between crypto* people, and 2A people.
I have noticed this correlation as well (I am an example of it in fact). I think there is a common thread of decentralization and bringing power closer to the people that resonates with the two groups.
I think the correlation is termed "libertarian."
Cryptography is useful to protect privacy, which is very closely related to liberty.
I have not noticed this correlation, so it may be anecdotal.
At first thought, it seems 100% absurd that an ad-hoc underpowered group of people with small arms counts for anything in the modern age.
But history shows otherwise: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Empirically, every totalitarian state bans citizen firearms (Nazi Germany, USSR, Cuba, N. Korea). For "good" reason.
While of course different, crypto has many of the same pros and cons as firearms, and it should be supported for the same reasons.
https://xkcd.com/504/
But history shows otherwise: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Empirically, every totalitarian state bans citizen firearms (Nazi Germany, USSR, Cuba, N. Korea). For "good" reason.
While of course different, crypto has many of the same pros and cons as firearms, and it should be supported for the same reasons.
https://xkcd.com/504/
Every example of yours had plenty of external help without which I am doubtful they would have as much success.
No idea what your definition of totalitarian state is, but there certainly was not a complete ban on firearms neither in Nazi Germany nor in many of post WW2 socialist countries (e.g. hunters).
No idea what your definition of totalitarian state is, but there certainly was not a complete ban on firearms neither in Nazi Germany nor in many of post WW2 socialist countries (e.g. hunters).
> there certainly was not a complete ban on firearms neither in Nazi Germany
It actually started post-WWI (due to Treaty of Versailles).
> In 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership...anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks. [1]
Laws were later relaxed from a total ban, though ownership was low, as all guns and ammo had been confiscated earlier. And Jews and companies with at least some Jewish ownership were forbidden to own any firearms or participate in their manufacture.
When oppressing a group, either selectively or indiscriminately, guns + speech for that group must go.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Reg...
It actually started post-WWI (due to Treaty of Versailles).
> In 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership...anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks. [1]
Laws were later relaxed from a total ban, though ownership was low, as all guns and ammo had been confiscated earlier. And Jews and companies with at least some Jewish ownership were forbidden to own any firearms or participate in their manufacture.
When oppressing a group, either selectively or indiscriminately, guns + speech for that group must go.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Reg...
Germany in 1919 was definitely not a totalitarian state. The laws were relaxed in 1928 which was BEFORE nazis came to power.
Don't forget the Revolutionary war, when we were the Guerrilla force.
That's the classic example, though folks will often argue it doesn't apply because there were only muskets and cannon, not machine guns (though that's technically not true).
with lots of help from France...
The VC, Taliban and everything that followed also heavily leveraged explosives against an underarmored opponent in their fights-- it wasn't just a matter of small arms. It should be telling that you can currently keep your toy guns, but god help you if you try to buy fertilizer and blasting caps in America without a damn good reason.
Waco and Ruby Ridge had an endless arsenal of small arms. It didn't help them.
Waco and Ruby Ridge had an endless arsenal of small arms. It didn't help them.
Common law (root of UK and US law) does have the right to self defence.
And this "other countries" mm a lot of this had constitutions where the citizens where given some rights by the king and not have universal rights.
And this "other countries" mm a lot of this had constitutions where the citizens where given some rights by the king and not have universal rights.
I believe UK law is not as strong as US laws regarding right to self defense
[1].https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/pensioner-arrested-stabbing-susp...
[2]. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1361028/Martin-is-cl...
[1].https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/pensioner-arrested-stabbing-susp...
[2]. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1361028/Martin-is-cl...
I was more talking about some of the roots of the 2nd amendment - the uks' gun control laws started to be brought in during a panic over the general strike.
Thinking of it as "guns" being a fundamental right is... kinda backwards.
And, for the record, I think that "because the Second Amendment" is a horrible and fantastically lazy argument for gun ownership.
Now, let us take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, Article 3:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
From this, I don't think it's a stretch to say that everyone has the right to protect the above -- within reason!
Everyone has an innate right to defend their life, liberty, and security of person. Without that, those rights are meaningless.
This is not the job of the police. You should definitely call them if you have the time! But they are under no obligation to protect you, or even to show up.
(Most people don't know that, by the way.)
When you encounter a threat to the above, you have the right to fight until that threat ends, with some leeway granted for the adrenaline dump of combat.
This is not an indiscriminate license to kill or even to engage in violence!
Even if you "feel threatened". You must be able to demonstrate that you acted in defense of life -- yours or another's -- in order to justify your use of force against an attacker.
Weapons are the means by which individuals use force.
Allowing for self-defense allows for the use of weapons.
There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon.
Your hands and feet are natural, and lethal, weapons. More people die by these every year in the United States than by "assault weapons".
Clubs and knives? Definitely lethal. The difference between the winner and a loser in a knife fight, is that the winner dies on the way to the hospital.
Tasers kill more people annually in the United States than "assault weapons". Tasers are also one-time use only. Miss your attacker? Too bad. Attacker has a thick jacket? Better luck next time. Multiple attackers? That sucks.
Pepper spray is probably the least-lethal thing you can use, but it still can and does kill people. Pepper spray is horribly ineffective. Use it indoors, or against the wind, and you will incapacitate yourself. It is useless in the rain. Or if your attacker is wearing a face mask. Or if you have multiple attackers.
A gun, on the other hand, works in the rain. It works in the wind. It works equally well regardless of how strong or weak you are. It works against multiple attackers.
Guns, even if "silenced", are also amazingly loud, which is a big advantage when you're defending yourself, because you want people to hear that noise and call the cops.
So, in a world where we respect peoples' human rights, allowing gun ownership really is common sense.
And, for the record, I think that "because the Second Amendment" is a horrible and fantastically lazy argument for gun ownership.
Now, let us take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, Article 3:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
From this, I don't think it's a stretch to say that everyone has the right to protect the above -- within reason!
Everyone has an innate right to defend their life, liberty, and security of person. Without that, those rights are meaningless.
This is not the job of the police. You should definitely call them if you have the time! But they are under no obligation to protect you, or even to show up.
(Most people don't know that, by the way.)
When you encounter a threat to the above, you have the right to fight until that threat ends, with some leeway granted for the adrenaline dump of combat.
This is not an indiscriminate license to kill or even to engage in violence!
Even if you "feel threatened". You must be able to demonstrate that you acted in defense of life -- yours or another's -- in order to justify your use of force against an attacker.
Weapons are the means by which individuals use force.
Allowing for self-defense allows for the use of weapons.
There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon.
Your hands and feet are natural, and lethal, weapons. More people die by these every year in the United States than by "assault weapons".
Clubs and knives? Definitely lethal. The difference between the winner and a loser in a knife fight, is that the winner dies on the way to the hospital.
Tasers kill more people annually in the United States than "assault weapons". Tasers are also one-time use only. Miss your attacker? Too bad. Attacker has a thick jacket? Better luck next time. Multiple attackers? That sucks.
Pepper spray is probably the least-lethal thing you can use, but it still can and does kill people. Pepper spray is horribly ineffective. Use it indoors, or against the wind, and you will incapacitate yourself. It is useless in the rain. Or if your attacker is wearing a face mask. Or if you have multiple attackers.
A gun, on the other hand, works in the rain. It works in the wind. It works equally well regardless of how strong or weak you are. It works against multiple attackers.
Guns, even if "silenced", are also amazingly loud, which is a big advantage when you're defending yourself, because you want people to hear that noise and call the cops.
So, in a world where we respect peoples' human rights, allowing gun ownership really is common sense.
The 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This implies that the right to gun ownership predates the constitution because you can not infringe on a right that doesn't yet exist. Thus our forefathers saw it as an inalienable right that predates our nation.
Yes, the entire Bill of Rights in fact pertains to our inalienable, universal rights. There is no difference from what one may term "fundamental" or "human" rights. It doesn't matter what the UN or anyone in other countries say or talk about -- just as the laws of physics are facts regardless of what some people may say or feel.
If we have the right to life, we have the right to self-defense. If we have the right to overthrow tyranny, we have the right to fight it and install a new form of government.
If we have the right to life, we have the right to self-defense. If we have the right to overthrow tyranny, we have the right to fight it and install a new form of government.
> our inalienable, universal rights
That school of thought dates from the 18th century when thinkers appealed to a Creator who endowed those rights (even if it was a rather aloof Deist conception of God). However, in the following century it faced strong competition from the utilitarian school that suggests that rights are only a convenient fiction that society recognizes for the common good. Plus, these days ever more people do not believe in any particular Creator who could have endowed anyone with rights.
Human ethics, metaethics and politics is definitely nowhere near "laws of physics" settled and agreed on.
That school of thought dates from the 18th century when thinkers appealed to a Creator who endowed those rights (even if it was a rather aloof Deist conception of God). However, in the following century it faced strong competition from the utilitarian school that suggests that rights are only a convenient fiction that society recognizes for the common good. Plus, these days ever more people do not believe in any particular Creator who could have endowed anyone with rights.
Human ethics, metaethics and politics is definitely nowhere near "laws of physics" settled and agreed on.
The "right to life" is seen in the objection to a government killing a citizen for no reason. The argument is that, self-evidently, it's wrong for a government to do that. So there must be a right to life independent of the laws of a country or the whims of its rulers. Sure, a theist would claim that God would in particular object to capricious killing, but you don't have to be a theist to claim it's self-evidently objectionable.
And I guess you can argue that some do not recognize universal rights, but it's not a compelling argument to just point out what some people think.
And I guess you can argue that some do not recognize universal rights, but it's not a compelling argument to just point out what some people think.
Not at all. The concept of natural rights merely means that by our nature we have rights. The schools of thought that led to that identification and to the foundation of the US based on the ideal of a government exclusively tasked with securing these rights goes back at least to the 15th century (Aristotle and other Greek thinkers already were inching towards the idea that there are things that are right to protect in the polis despite what others may think or the laws may impose; for example, read Antigone by Sophocles).
What is it in human nature that concretely and morally entails our having rights? the faculty of reason and its crucial role in human life, as long as we are free to act according to our thoughts. No faith involved, no mysticism required.
[added] The Founding Fathers did not create a theocracy. I don't see what point you are trying to make -- the concept of natural rights does not require a god, and it is irrelevant whether some person invoked deism or not. The fact is that we are all born with inalienable rights by virtue of our nature, what we are and how we ought to live together.
What is it in human nature that concretely and morally entails our having rights? the faculty of reason and its crucial role in human life, as long as we are free to act according to our thoughts. No faith involved, no mysticism required.
[added] The Founding Fathers did not create a theocracy. I don't see what point you are trying to make -- the concept of natural rights does not require a god, and it is irrelevant whether some person invoked deism or not. The fact is that we are all born with inalienable rights by virtue of our nature, what we are and how we ought to live together.
> The concept of natural rights merely means that by our nature we have rights.
The Greeks may have had a concept of natural rights separate from their being endowed by a Creator, but that is not the same concept of natural rights that John Locke proposed and which inspired the American Founding Fathers, leading to posts from Americans like the one we see above. Advocacy for that school repeatedly cites the existence of a Creator.
The Greeks may have had a concept of natural rights separate from their being endowed by a Creator, but that is not the same concept of natural rights that John Locke proposed and which inspired the American Founding Fathers, leading to posts from Americans like the one we see above. Advocacy for that school repeatedly cites the existence of a Creator.
John Locke and many American Founding Fathers definitely do cite the existence of a Creator, but that isn't a fundamental requirement of the argument. Part of the derivations of natural rights (at least in Locke) comes from observing animals in nature, and applying these "natural" rules to humanity.
The french rights pronounced by the French Revolution had nothing to do with the idea of a Creator and were very similar in concept with many of the Founding Fathers'. So this does not seem like a reasonable argument to make.
FWIW, and I use this example in discussions with non-scientists all the time, Newtonian Gravity, aka the "Law of Gravity", not only isn't a fact, it isn't even correct. General relativity appears to be a closer approximation to nature, as Sir Arthur Eddington demonstrated in 1919[1], and Albert Einstein put forth in 1915[2].
That writers continue to conflate the definition of legal "law" with scientific "law" is in some ways amusing, but it weakens the analogies. A physical theory (testable hypothesis making specific predictions) isn't a law. The analogies aren't merely suspect, they are often fatally flawed with appeals to authority amongst other practices which are not relevant in science.
What I am saying, more simply is that "laws" of physics aren't facts. Using them as the basis for an analogy results in flawed reasoning.
With regard to the original subject matter, fundamental rights mean different things to different people, countries, governments, and other entities. It would be nice if everyone adopted a single minimal definition that we all interpreted and supported in the same manner.
This wish is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, as fundamental human rights often run counter to power structures of various types across the world. These rights could potentially constrain other entities rights, so they may choose to adopt some or none of them, or interpret them in as wildly different a manner as they wish.
This is vastly different than how physicists interpret and test theories. We don't set h_bar == 0 because we don't want the world to have a quantum character in some locations. But entities in power can set FundamentalRight_type == 0 for a specific type (pick speech, life, liberty, pursuit of happyness) if they so choose.
In this way, "fundamental" rights are really not so fundamental. They aren't like the theories of physics, the same everywhere.
[1] see https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-re... though like almost all writers, they misunderstand what "proven to be correct" means in the context of a physical theory.
[2] see https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_20...
That writers continue to conflate the definition of legal "law" with scientific "law" is in some ways amusing, but it weakens the analogies. A physical theory (testable hypothesis making specific predictions) isn't a law. The analogies aren't merely suspect, they are often fatally flawed with appeals to authority amongst other practices which are not relevant in science.
What I am saying, more simply is that "laws" of physics aren't facts. Using them as the basis for an analogy results in flawed reasoning.
With regard to the original subject matter, fundamental rights mean different things to different people, countries, governments, and other entities. It would be nice if everyone adopted a single minimal definition that we all interpreted and supported in the same manner.
This wish is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, as fundamental human rights often run counter to power structures of various types across the world. These rights could potentially constrain other entities rights, so they may choose to adopt some or none of them, or interpret them in as wildly different a manner as they wish.
This is vastly different than how physicists interpret and test theories. We don't set h_bar == 0 because we don't want the world to have a quantum character in some locations. But entities in power can set FundamentalRight_type == 0 for a specific type (pick speech, life, liberty, pursuit of happyness) if they so choose.
In this way, "fundamental" rights are really not so fundamental. They aren't like the theories of physics, the same everywhere.
[1] see https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-re... though like almost all writers, they misunderstand what "proven to be correct" means in the context of a physical theory.
[2] see https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_20...
You're muddying the water and completely missing the point:
Facts are what they are, regardless of what people may say or feel about them. The laws of physics, such as Ohm's Law, can be discovered and are facts even were people to deny their validity. The same is true for all facts of nature, including the nature of humans and their rights.
Facts are what they are, regardless of what people may say or feel about them. The laws of physics, such as Ohm's Law, can be discovered and are facts even were people to deny their validity. The same is true for all facts of nature, including the nature of humans and their rights.
Scientific fact is testable and falsifiable. If you're going to claim that natural rights are fact, I'm going to ask that you provide a testable hypothesis that demonstrates the right to life as a law.
Irrelevant. Things are what they are regardless of what you think, pray, ask, claim, test, or emote. If you truly want to learn about the factual basis of individual rights, there is ample literature for you to look up and read. If you wish to believe or claim that rights are not grounded in the facts of human nature, that's one of your rights.
What the big T Truth is is irrelevant if it can't be proven or measured. Watch:
The fact is that I'm a brain in a jar, therefore you don't really exist and have no rights whatsoever.
For what you say to be fact, and not just your personal belief wrongly presented as such, you first need to prove to me that you really exist.
All this to say, anyone who claims to know the "truth" or "facts" in a discussion about ethics and morals doesn't know what they're talking about.
The fact is that I'm a brain in a jar, therefore you don't really exist and have no rights whatsoever.
For what you say to be fact, and not just your personal belief wrongly presented as such, you first need to prove to me that you really exist.
All this to say, anyone who claims to know the "truth" or "facts" in a discussion about ethics and morals doesn't know what they're talking about.
Respectfully, I disagree on both claims.
Fact in law is not the same as a fact in science.
Scientific "law" is an artifice, more of something created by someone attempting to explain using a poor mapping of language to the way scientists do their work. Scientific theory makes testable and falsifiable predictions. Gravity is a theory, not a law. It makes testable and falsifiable predictions.
Specifically, Newtonian gravity, what you call the law of gravity or a "law of physics" is known to be wrong.
Given this, how can you claim that they are what they are "regardless of what people may say or feel about them" ?
As a (non-practicing Ph.D) physicist, I have this discussion with many non-scientists, to try to help them move beyond the concept of "laws of physics" (there are none), and into the concept of testable predictions arising from the hypotheses in the theory.
Ohms "Law" is yet another example. Ohm's law breaks down spectacularly for certain materials under specific conditions. Quantum systems like Josephson junctions most definitely do not obey Ohm's "law".
In science, absolute laws do not generally exist. Using your words "regardless of what people may say or feel about them", they are irrelevant, and often incorrect. Scientific "law" is not absolute. They are not "facts".
Language, english or otherwise, is a very poor substitute for the language that testable hypotheses are written in. There is often a fundamentally severe impedance mismatch between what is written out, and what the language of science (mathematics FWIW) actually says, or even how to interpret or describe what is going on.
Without constructing a strawman, I'd like to point out that in previous centuries, people were so enamored of the fixed natural "laws", that they actually persecuted those who poked holes in them. One that comes to mind is the geocentric model of the universe.
This one is particularly interesting, as it had both religious overtones and support, and made specific predictions. The predictions of geocentricism about other planetary orbits did not match observations.
That is the fundamental Ptolemaic system law of planetary motion was wrong.
But it couldn't be.
But it was.
So astronomers developed modifications to the laws. Epicycles were invented.[1]. Which made the calculations harder. And it meant you had to discuss a mechanism by which this worked. That is the law which you are claiming to be inviolate, must be modified at best, or discarded at worse.
Add in to this very accurate measurements and analysis by Brahe, Kepler, and others, this lead Galileo, Newton and others to formulate a new model of the solar system, backed up by testable predictions. It took a while for this "law" to supplant the previous "law". But supplant it, it did.
Because science is not based upon absolute, legalistic versions of laws. Science is based upon testable hypotheses. If the tests fail, so does the hypothesis.
This mechanism survived unscathed for about 250 years or so. Until Einstein pointed out the problems with it.
My point was simply that just because the popular science writers call it a law, doesn't mean it is a "law".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
Fact in law is not the same as a fact in science.
Scientific "law" is an artifice, more of something created by someone attempting to explain using a poor mapping of language to the way scientists do their work. Scientific theory makes testable and falsifiable predictions. Gravity is a theory, not a law. It makes testable and falsifiable predictions.
Specifically, Newtonian gravity, what you call the law of gravity or a "law of physics" is known to be wrong.
Given this, how can you claim that they are what they are "regardless of what people may say or feel about them" ?
As a (non-practicing Ph.D) physicist, I have this discussion with many non-scientists, to try to help them move beyond the concept of "laws of physics" (there are none), and into the concept of testable predictions arising from the hypotheses in the theory.
Ohms "Law" is yet another example. Ohm's law breaks down spectacularly for certain materials under specific conditions. Quantum systems like Josephson junctions most definitely do not obey Ohm's "law".
In science, absolute laws do not generally exist. Using your words "regardless of what people may say or feel about them", they are irrelevant, and often incorrect. Scientific "law" is not absolute. They are not "facts".
Language, english or otherwise, is a very poor substitute for the language that testable hypotheses are written in. There is often a fundamentally severe impedance mismatch between what is written out, and what the language of science (mathematics FWIW) actually says, or even how to interpret or describe what is going on.
Without constructing a strawman, I'd like to point out that in previous centuries, people were so enamored of the fixed natural "laws", that they actually persecuted those who poked holes in them. One that comes to mind is the geocentric model of the universe.
This one is particularly interesting, as it had both religious overtones and support, and made specific predictions. The predictions of geocentricism about other planetary orbits did not match observations.
That is the fundamental Ptolemaic system law of planetary motion was wrong.
But it couldn't be.
But it was.
So astronomers developed modifications to the laws. Epicycles were invented.[1]. Which made the calculations harder. And it meant you had to discuss a mechanism by which this worked. That is the law which you are claiming to be inviolate, must be modified at best, or discarded at worse.
Add in to this very accurate measurements and analysis by Brahe, Kepler, and others, this lead Galileo, Newton and others to formulate a new model of the solar system, backed up by testable predictions. It took a while for this "law" to supplant the previous "law". But supplant it, it did.
Because science is not based upon absolute, legalistic versions of laws. Science is based upon testable hypotheses. If the tests fail, so does the hypothesis.
This mechanism survived unscathed for about 250 years or so. Until Einstein pointed out the problems with it.
My point was simply that just because the popular science writers call it a law, doesn't mean it is a "law".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
Physics and its development is not the sole, nor the primary, reference for man's means and acquisition of knowledge. Ohm's Law is valid within certain limits, and these limits are also facts. (I misstated something earlier -- Ohm's Law itself is not a fact, it is conceptual framework, an identification of facts.) Just as our understanding of blood groups and their compatibility has improved over time -- the underlying facts did not change, the knowledge and theories changed to take into account the expanded knowledge of facts. Science is a systematic body of knowledge, that is: knowledge of nature -- nature being the facts.
this is my preferred interpretation, also :)
Then please petetion your senator to deregulate tanks, fighter jets, nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, submarines etc. If you are serious about arming civilians as protection to overthrow tyranny, do a better job.
>Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.
George Orwell, "You and the Atom Bomb", Tribune (19 October 1945)
George Orwell, "You and the Atom Bomb", Tribune (19 October 1945)
We already have the National Guard [1] --aka militias-- which provide ample check from the State level against a would-be dictatorship at the Federal level. For further self-education, one may want to read The Federalist Papers, in particular no 46 written by Madison (see [2] for a discussion of the issue).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_S...
[2] http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_S...
[2] http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being...
The constitutional concept of the militia is universal (well, universal for adult free males, at least, but arguably the limitations their relate to limitations applicable to the concept of full citizenship at the time, not special ones for the militia); the National Guard is a subset of or overlaps with the militia (and is, as it is structured, in some ways, in conflict with the conceptualized role of the militia in securing liberty) but is not equivalent to the militia.
I agree, militia is a wider concept and there can be many such free-formed associations. I merely wanted to mention that the National Guard are also known as militias, and they have always had very powerful weapons at their disposal.
[deleted]
Please explain Vietnam.
It is a myth that the Vietnam war was mostly a war between US conventional forces against Vietnamese guerrilla forces.
In point of fact, the majority of the battles the US military and ARVN engaged in were against the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). That is, conventional forces vs other conventional forces. While the VC (VietCong) were very active and played a crucial role in the eventual victory of North Vietnam over South Vietnam, they were never the primary military force deployed by the communists.
Moreover, the VC were not just guys with AK's. They had the full panoply of military hardware that light infantry uses: from anti-tank rockets to mortars to light anti-air missiles. The VC even had a few tanks. The VC did not engage solely in small unit guerilla operations either. Once in a while, they would launch major offensives using coordinated assaults of 10's of thousands of soldiers.
What history has shown is that while insurgencies can cause problems for established regimes, without outside logistical and financial support (i.e. supply of arms, food, money, etc) they usually cannot win.
In point of fact, the majority of the battles the US military and ARVN engaged in were against the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). That is, conventional forces vs other conventional forces. While the VC (VietCong) were very active and played a crucial role in the eventual victory of North Vietnam over South Vietnam, they were never the primary military force deployed by the communists.
Moreover, the VC were not just guys with AK's. They had the full panoply of military hardware that light infantry uses: from anti-tank rockets to mortars to light anti-air missiles. The VC even had a few tanks. The VC did not engage solely in small unit guerilla operations either. Once in a while, they would launch major offensives using coordinated assaults of 10's of thousands of soldiers.
What history has shown is that while insurgencies can cause problems for established regimes, without outside logistical and financial support (i.e. supply of arms, food, money, etc) they usually cannot win.
jjuhl(1)
HipHopHacker(4)
Democracies need top of the line militaires to exist. Plain and simple.
>"...that uses artificial intelligence to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes."
These drone strikes have been happening for decades without interpretive AI, and they will probably continue with or without. So let's make the strikes more precise and save more civilians.
>"But improved analysis of drone video could be used to pick out human targets for strikes, while also better identifying civilians to reduce the accidental killing of innocent people."
These drone strikes have been happening for decades without interpretive AI, and they will probably continue with or without. So let's make the strikes more precise and save more civilians.
>"But improved analysis of drone video could be used to pick out human targets for strikes, while also better identifying civilians to reduce the accidental killing of innocent people."
The need for human operators to identify targets serves as a hard logistical limit to how many drone strikes can be delivered. Turning them into a machine removes that limit.
Suppose you decrease error rate by 10% (optimistic), but increase volume by 20% (probably underestimated). You'll get an 8% increase in innocent deaths.
Suppose you decrease error rate by 10% (optimistic), but increase volume by 20% (probably underestimated). You'll get an 8% increase in innocent deaths.
The hard logistical limit is the cost and the number of airframes.
No, it actually is the amount of eyeballs to analyze drone footage. They literally have so much footage feeding in that they can no longer review it with humans. This tech is designed to make the surveillance dragnet feeding into military decisions more automated and efficient.
Where are you coming up with those percentages? Why are you assuming that human operators will be removed from the decision making process?
Well then, Google employees should start with moving out of the US. Because, they seem to benefit and enjoy the safety and security provided to them by the Pentagon.
Grow the fuck up - part of living in a democracy is tolerating the implementation of measures one disagrees with. Republicans might oppose birth control, but companies continue to support it in their health plans. Likewise, a state of the art offensive military is democratically wanted in the US, state your disagreement and tolerate it's implementation
Grow the fuck up - part of living in a democracy is tolerating the implementation of measures one disagrees with. Republicans might oppose birth control, but companies continue to support it in their health plans. Likewise, a state of the art offensive military is democratically wanted in the US, state your disagreement and tolerate it's implementation
>Grow the fuck up - part of living in a democracy is tolerating the implementation of measures one disagrees with
And tolerating the opinions of others.
And tolerating the opinions of others.
Are you mistaking a swear word for intolerance?
No, the suggestion that any conflicting viewpoint is a sign of immaturity. No one would ever suspect someone who can't speak to a fucking stranger without cursing struggles with maturity as well.
Not to mention, encourages them to leave the country, or at the very least, state their objections and then put up with something they deeply morally disagree with (and basically violates international laws on human rights). Oh, and it's an action that's probably self-defeating. Offensive military capabilities indeed.
"I can't think of a job or a career where the understanding of ethics is more important than engineering," Dr. Kearns continues. "Who designed the artificial aortic heart valve? An engineer did that. Who designed the gas chambers at Auschwitz? An engineer did that, too. One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions."
"Now, I don't know what any of you are going to end up doing in your lives," Dr. Kearns says, "but I can guarantee you that there will come a day when you have a decision to make. And it won't be as easy as deciding between a heart valve and a gas chamber."
To me this is incredibly valid for Silicon Valley engineers these days.